Interview 1028 – Financial Survival: From Malthus to Depopulation

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. lincolnlea says:

   04/17/2015 at 1:10 am

   Really enjoyed this discussion James, thanks to both of you.
   It reminded me, in it’s “predictions” theme from Malthus on, of all the predictions I’ve seen none of which were correct. And rushing out to “do” something would have been at best a total waste of resources and possibly a cause of worse problems.
   The late lamented Michael Crichton gave a superb talk at the Smithsonian which encompassed this. He pointed to a report from “social planners” or their then equivalent, in New York in the late 1800’s, who had looked at the growth of horse usage in the city, done a straight line forward prediction (always a mistake in itself of course) and estimated that they could not cope with the tons and tons of horse manure that would be swamping New York in a mere 50 yrs time – about 1930. They needed to “do something”. They of course had no crystal ball to tell them of the Model T, and that by the mid 1930’s horses would be little more than a novelty in NY city. It’s why I fall back on the thesis that it’s more likely than not that any major problems we have now will have been solved in the future by something we have no way of predicting now.

   And people really should learn, you can’t apply a straight line projection to a complex entity.

   When I was a teenager in the UK, I remember reading the confident statement by climate scientists that by the year 2000 London would be gone. Covered in about a mile of ice. !!! (Unless, of course, “we” rush out and do something). I thought then “what a load of old cobblers..” as I think now about the warming.

   Last I looked, London is still there and flourishing.

   Log in to Reply
   • matthew_d says:

     04/17/2015 at 11:13 am

     I was born in 1990. When I first started getting brainwashed, I mean school, it was called global warming….now it’s called global climate change. I mean really? If the climate’s changing, it’s just doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s called the weather.

     In 2008, I was a senior in high school. For my public speaking class I gave a speech on (still called) global warming. In my research I found the most damning evidence I’ve ever seen on this topic. I found an article from Time magazine from like 1978, talking about all the horrible weather events, the droughts, the food shortages, all the people that would die, all because of…GLOBAL COOLING…So we’ve had global cooling, then global warming, and now they’re lazy, so it’s just global climate change?

     In fact, the article talked about how scientists at the time were trying to figure out ways to melt the polar ice caps…I kid you not.

     Log in to Reply
2. stevekelly911 says:

   04/17/2015 at 4:13 pm

   I also heard the saying that the worlds population could all fit into the state of Texas with a suburban culture once too, and did the numbers;

   Area of Texas: 696,241 km’s squared.
   Worlds Population: 7,000,000,000 individuals.
   696,241 / 7,000,000,000 = 0.0001 square kilometer per person.
   0.0001 x 1000m x 1000m = 100 square meters per person (10×10 meter box)

   Could a family of four live in 20 meters x 20 meters? I’ve seen worse in Asia currently, but there would need to be major room used for utilities, roads, and I think the reservoir would take quite a bit of space, not to mention the waste treatment plants, and rooftop food farms would be a must 🙂

   It’s obviously not the best example to rebut a snarky and ‘trendy’ claim that the world is over populated. People who are trained at western ‘schools’ using a UNESCO curricula – almost all of them – need to be given more reasoned rebuttals. Let us all remember that most of them believe unequivocally in hockey-stick climate ‘science’, and that polar bears are an endangered species. The hockey-stick was a one time consensus; except for those darn ‘deniers’ (*Ahem*).

   I have personally found that the best technique is to straight away use an economic argument, and to start with those three important words ‘Fractional Reserve Banking’ (which most university trained accountants and economists weren’t ever taught! No joke!), simplifying into the two words ‘Wealth Transfer’, and then into the single words ‘Colonialism’, and ‘Corporatocracy’.

   When I explain to them that China actually has a much higher population than it should right now, because in the 1800’s one in three Chinese adult males were addicted to BEIC Opium, as a direct result of UK Govt/Monarchic policy, and that this forced the addicts to have large numbers of children to work on the tea plantations, their ears usually prick up.

   Also, Indians were similarly forced to have many children to work the opium plantations, after their land was prohibited from being used for food production by the BEIC, who then raised the price of food import supplements from other British Colonies so that they were living at subsistence level, and had to have even more children to farm the required qty of poppies to pay the rent and feed themselves (even though the same acreage could produce 100 times the food that the same area in poppies could buy from the BEIC import supplements).

   The Bengal famine of 1770 demonstrates quite clearly exactly how parasitical this system got at one point, and had the exact opposite effect, destroying the qty of farm laborers, and bringing the BEIC close to bankruptcy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770).

   And to think, that suicide nets at Apple Inc., and textile sweatshops across Asia, have exactly the same effect, so that a large family is required to pay the rent on their 5x5meter shed where 10 people live, so they can pay the local rent shark for shelter, after he takes his cut of the ‘aid’ money as long as he ensures that AGENDA 21 artificially imposed scarcity on land and shelter, keeps these people in this situation to begin with … as subsistence renters without access to farm land, and in perpetual service to the local sweatshop, incorporated on the Isle of Jersey etc…

   Prince Philip could solve many of these problems, simply by shutting down the Crown Tax Haven Network that his family is the protecting sovereign patron of, where all the modern descendants of the BEIC known as multinational tax exempt corporate colonialisers dwell. Statistics show that without wealth inequality, families maintain themselves at replacement breeding rates, and some even decline in population (ie, Australia) and require immigration to prevent a demographic cliff.

   The problems all start with the modern fractional reserve central banking system (gamed wealth transfer), which surprise, surprise, started in London, and became entrenched with capital flows from the likes of the BEIC. Basically, Prince Philip himself is the problem, but the self proclaimed Ubermensch (supermen) cannot claim this title without first deliberately creating an Untermensch (inferiors). His attacks on overpopulation are just his way of rationalizing the fact that his family, and the other monarchies and merchant oligarchical dynasties of Europe, are the prime cause of the most serious of humanities problems; it all started with greed (the worship of Mammon).

   This is the area of history that most advocates of the over population myth, seem to be totally ignorant of, by educational design, and saturated in an obnoxious self serving intellectualism masquerading as humanitarian concern; Malthus all over.

   Fractional reserve banking + micro-state jurisdictional capture (Tax havens) + poncy princes living in government paid for palaces (plural) = the only conversation worth having on the subject, and it is once again an economic argument, and has nothing to do with ‘science’, or some trendy ‘consensus’ created by compartmentalized education. Follow the money, as usual. Good interview.

   Log in to Reply