patrick.net

indigenous says

The 20th century welfare state, with its hitherto unknown concepts such as spending a third of your adult lifetime in "retirement", is premised on the basis that there will be enough new citizens to support the old.

This. Borrowing and spending and the welfare state all require inflation and/or expansion, and enable an apparently unstoppable array of political patronage networks. Self-styled "conservatives" focus on "entitlement" spending and underfunded pensions, but the same problem applies equally to wars, which have increased government spending massively from WWI through Iraq, which most self-styled "conservatives" still cannot admit was a mistake. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” A culture of borrowing and spending has enabled so many patronage networks throughout the American Empire of Debt that an elite consensus favors borrowing and spending and inflation and immigration because their salaries depend on it, even if the consequences prove lethal.

indigenous says

The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

This too. Friedrich Nietzsche differentiated what he called master morality (primary morality) from what he called slave morality (secondary morality, arising in response to primary). Primary morality valued strength and victory, while secondary morality (including Christianity) valued surrender and meekness. Rome prospered as a republic with freedom of religion, and continued to prosper as an empire even with emperors who deified themselves. It conquered countless adversities including hostile neighbors partly because of a moral code that valued strength and conquest. Then it became officially Christian, replacing primary morality with secondary morality. Both subsequently and in large part consequently, it declined and fell.

But self-styled "conservative" Christians blame, wrongly, features of Rome (including same-sex marriage) that had been part of its strength. Cicero wrote of same-sex marriage in the time of Augustus (one of Rome's "five good emperors"), and Nero's five marriages included two to men. The empire continued to prosper, and Nero became extremely popular in the eastern empire, even though he was hated in the imperial capital (which he allowed to burn) and by the early Christians (whom he persecuted).

Today, Christian leaders including the pope demand that Christian countries welcome Muslim immigrants. They seem to see it as part of demanding respect for religion. As western science disproves religious tenets, including geocentrism and creationism, Christian leaders demand continued respect for false beliefs. Merkel heads Germany's "Christian Democratic Party" and opposes same-sex marriage, and sees Muslim immigrants as potential allies politically. In Ireland, devout Catholics were cheered by the sight of long lines of Muslim voters who turned out to oppose marriage equality. In both America and Ireland, opposition to marriage equality was almost entirely religious. Charlatans whose salaries depend on peddling false doctrines insist on faith-based government and refuse to understand the value of evidence-based government, even in America where the founders created expressly what Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state (see, U.S. Constitution Article VI and Amendment 1, and later Amendment 14). Science does offer potential for longer lifespans and robotics to continue prosperity for a very long time, and many married same-sex couples are in fact having children, but charlatans' salaries result from tithes that depend on refusing to acknowledge those facts.

But Islam, while claiming to value submission and slavery to the Aloha Snackbar, is in fact an example of primary morality, i.e. master morality. Since its charlatans control its oxymoronically inchoate omnipotent deity, they can motivate deluded followers to fight on their behalf. Fighting for Islam is the highest virtue, and dying in that struggle is the only guaranteed path to paradise. You could spend your whole life doing good deeds, and those might weigh in your favor, but the only guarantee is to die fighting for Islam. They must fight "persecution of Islam" (including blasphemy, i.e. criticizing Islam) and now "terrorism" (which they define to include atheism or questioning the fundamentals of Islam). Each jihadi can plead on behalf of up to 70 relatives to enter paradise, so they can easily motivate lethal conspiracies including accessories before and after the fact. For example, in Pakistan, police struggle to cope with jihadi murderers who kill "moderate" Muslims, because the murderers can retreat into neighborhoods where neighbors ring bells to warn of police arrival. The police can only arrive in dark of night when most people are sleeping, and must work quickly to complete their mission before the bells start ringing, lest they too get killed by jihadis. Consider the story of Asia Bibi and the late governor of Punjab, for example: blasphemy is a capital crime under Sharia, which nearly all Pakistanis claim to believe in. A doctrine that says to kill its enemies has a primal strategic advantage compared to a doctrine that tells believers to love its enemies.

Personally, I favor the enlightenment and evidence-based decision-making, as most of the founders did, including Jefferson. That's what our Constitution says, and I support it.

Looking at the evidence, one particular doctrine declares itself at war against the western world, which Daesh calls "Rome." (America's founders chose Roman symbols for the new republic, and in my opinion Rome remains among the greatest civilizations in human history, so I'm flattered they call us Rome.) It makes no sense for America to promote Islam, but Saudi petrodollars drive patronage networks to promote Saudi interests at the expense of American interests and ultimately at the expense of western civilization. The Supreme Court has written that American government must not favor one religion over others, nor religion over irreligion, but America has demanded sanctions and sometimes gone to war on behalf of Saudi/Sunni interests in Bosnia, Serbia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Iran, to name a few examples.

indigenous says

Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

Evidently not. None has ever done so. To the contrary, a critical mass of between 10% and 20% seems enough to destabilize a previously pluralist country (e.g. Lebanon). The Weimar republic fell due to several factors including the Nazis and their allies outnumbering the police, preventing the police from providing security. France has had to suspend what had been considered fundamental rights to privacy in order to combat Islamic terrorists hidden among Muslims who comprise less than 10% of the population. For the reasons that the OP explains, France and Sweden will likely become more than 20% Muslim within the foreseeable future.

indigenous says

This ought to be the left's issue... Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant?

This, most of all. Most on the left have blinded themselves, apparently due to the (il)logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I've debated occasionally with @Dan8267 on this point. His view is that Christians being more numerous in this country have more power over him, and so he counts Christianity as the biggest religious threat. I don't agree. On balance, Islam is inherently more violent, and Muslims are much more likely to be devout, and so in my opinion the problems of religiosity are much more concentrated and dangerous there. It's like comparing methanol vs beer: either can intoxicate a person, but methanol is much more likely to kill, and if methanol causes fewer deaths in America that is only because it has been prohibited while beer has been legalized; during Prohibition, both were illegal, and methanol killed many more Americans than it does today. A country with a Christian majority can debate and sometimes those debates get noisy with people saying unkind things, but in countries with Muslim majorities the sight of somebody's head getting cut off tends to discourage further debate. It's primal: the winning side is the side still living, regardless of who may have been technically correct about the earth revolving around the sun.

indigenous says

The western world is going out of business because it's given up having babies

And aborted approximately 42 million at a rate of about 1M a year since 1973, removing their potential for reproduction.

It would appear that the US is more likely to be taken over by Catholics/Mexicans than Muslims.

I would not include conquest as a virtue.

The Romans were taken over by the Christians in the same manner Mark Steyn describes regarding the Muslims.

P N Dr Lo R says

And aborted approximately 42 million at a rate of about 1M a year since 1973, removing their potential for reproduction.

Good Point.

Notice Steyn points out that the Feminazis are very muted on this point in the EU and Britain. I.E. Patrick miss assigns this causality.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/chinese-baby-bust-population/

The number of babies born in China fell to 10.6 million last year, 1.4 million lower than the year before. This was a lower birth rate than in the great famine of the 1950s, despite the fact that the one-child policy ended in 2015. China’s leaders have responded to this ever more urgent crisis with a series of measures to encourage more births — but to little avail. In 2018, Chinese media caused a stir by promoting the idea that women should not wait for “Mr. Right” but instead make do with “Mr. OK”; one newspaper editorial even warned that “marriage is a process of tolerating each other.” Over-thirties who have not yet married have become known by the ugly term “leftover women.” Nothing But Thirty, a hit 2020 TV series set in Shanghai, featured a character, Wang Manni, who finds herself still searching for love in her fourth decade and fearing that she has been left on the shelf, despite her professional success.

Lol, feminism wreaks devastation everywhere on earth.

Patrick says

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/chinese-baby-bust-population/

The number of babies born in China fell to 10.6 million last year, 1.4 million lower than the year before. This was a lower birth rate than in the great famine of the 1950s, despite the fact that the one-child policy ended in...

I read recently that a growing number of young Chinese are fed up with being slaves of Xi and are deliberately not procreating. They are determined to be the last generation of Xi’s slaves ,even if their only weapon is going Galt.

cisTits says

https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=de2bc41f8324e6955ef65e0c9&id=49f3d74bed

20-23. The Goddess Eris and Cthulhu smile. Disruption reigns supreme in the New Year.

i hate government, just all of them.

In addition to fewer kids, Democrats also have more depression, addictions, suicide, etc.

Whenever I meet an adult white male liberal I wonder: "Who convinced you to hate yourself?"

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

i hate government, just all of them.

That’s because you aren’t being represented and you never will be. This is by design.
The true rulers of America are never elected, but they tell the elected leaders what to do. Their interests rarely ever align with yours.
The only control you can have is made possible by grouping interests with others in your field in sanctioned groups like unions. And you still won’t get everything you want.

I honestly do not know how any of this ever will change. We have “world peace,” but we got it by giving up freedom.

Patrick says

I don't know, perhaps the level of misery is high enough that people are curtailing their reproduction rate.

richwicks says

Patrick says

I don't know, perhaps the level of misery is high enough that people are curtailing their reproduction rate.

Manufactured and fake misery. Standard of living for deadbeats has never been better, and while standard of living for the middle class to upper class has eroded quite a bit the past decades, it's still decent as the leftoids aren't done with the wrecking yet, plus Trump’s 4 orange golden years delayed the wrecking quite significantly. Miserable a are mainly aborting white leftoid wommynz liberated from everything, including earning a living, withering in booze, cat dander and pharma drugs, and mgtow incel soyboy gamers. And without both of them participating, the reproduction rate goes down. Of course there are those few that choose a kidless life style and are happy with it, few and far between though, 80% men.

It's true all over the earth - as people move from the countryside where children are an asset to cities where they are a liability, they have fewer children. And it's easier for them to do that because of birth control.

At least the Amish and the Orthodox Jews are still reproducing at a good clip. And mell, too!

Most wealth in any country is in the land and property.

Western birthrates have been declining for decades.

Smart people read charts.

Thus you have mass immigration.

It doesn't matter if an employed citizen or government/NGO on behalf of a refugee is paying, as long as you get your landlord rent.

That's a good argument for Georgism right there, @AmericanKulak

https://twitter.com/FonsDK/status/1619740864888324099?ref_src=patrick.net

45% of women over 35 in the US will be childless and single by 2030.

And yet traffic is getting worse ..

Yep, those women are out driving instead of being home having babies.

https://notthebee.com/article/throwback-john-lennon-says-overpopulation-is-a-myth-that-the-government-has-thrown-out-there-to-keep-your-mind-off-important-subjects

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/03/7-3-billion-people-one-building.html

Patrick says

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/03/7-3-billion-people-one-building.html

Yes you could stuff that number of people into it, however, you'd not be able to feed them.

My brother in law raises cows, you'd be surprised how much land they need to survive, and they're just basically machines to turn plant material into protein. On 1/2 the field they eat the grass down to nearly nothing, then he moves them to the other 1/2, and they do it again, and then he moves them again back, and in winter, he has to buy feed.

We're probably more efficient, but we need to consume SOME animal protein of some sort. You can't appreciate how much land you need to survive until you really attempt it and you wouldn't want to survive just on your own. You wouldn't have spices for example, everything would be bland and tasteless. I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that many spices are good for you, giving you trace vitamins and minerals. There's got to be a reason they taste so good.

Patrick says

Number of children by political affiliation.

And I'm guessing that those a pre-jab statistics. It's going to be even more skewed post-jab.

richwicks says

Yes you could stuff that number of people into it, however, you'd not be able to feed them.

https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-feed-one-person/

About 5.5 acres per person.

So how many acres of usable land are there in the world?

1 cow is about 1 to 3 acres depending on whether it's Green Ireland or Australian Outback.

The acreage also depends on how "Hands Are" you are. If you're more hands off it's closer to 3 acres, if you carefully reset a mini paddock every day or so and it's east of the Rockies, you could get closer to the 1 acre figure.

A cow produces hundreds of pounds of meat. More if you eat the head cheese, organ meats, and boil every bone for marrow and bone broth. A dairy cow with or without calves is closer to the 3 acres, maybe a little over. You can also get smaller varieties of cattle.

If you like mutton, or goat, you can have several on 1-3 acres no problem, plus milk and cheese. There are many small breeds of goat that produce well but eat little.

That leaves at least 2 acres for vegetables, cereals, potatoes (very calorie dense), and a few chickens and/or small fish pond, some trellises for a vineyard, beehives, and a small grove of fruit trees. Not to mention a house and driveway. All very do-able.

Plenty to have an incredibly well balanced diet and probably 2-4 people depending on age in a typical Western occupied lands (Pennsylvania, Wales, Perm, etc.)

Patrick says

About 5.5 acres per person.

That is to feed only, with a hand to mouth existence. Now consider water. Also consider resources needed to generate electricity and fuel for a non-3rd world existence. Materials for houses and cars. Just because you have elbow room does not make it work.

Patrick says

richwicks says

Yes you could stuff that number of people into it, however, you'd not be able to feed them.

https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-feed-one-person/

About 5.5 acres per person.

So how many acres of usable land are there in the world?

Be careful, this site is Veg friendly and is exaggerating the benefits of Veg or primarily Veg diets. Truth is in temperate climes it's difficult to have a nutritious diet on Veg only. Raw Calories don't tell the whole story. Complete Proteins (not partial) and Fats are very hard to get from vegetarian in a non-tropical, non-Med climate with no imports of avocadoes, Olives, etc.

AmericanKulak says

Be careful, this site is Veg friendly and is exaggerating the benefits of Veg or primarily Veg diets. Truth is in temperate climes it's difficult to have a nutritious diet on Veg only. Raw Calories don't tell the whole story. Complete Proteins (not partial) and Fats are very hard to get from vegetarian in a non-tropical, non-Med climate with no imports of avocadoes, Olives, etc.

You cannot, be a vegan. Vegetarian, yeah, it's actually quite easy as you can eat eggs and dairy.

There really is no such thing as a vegan. It's impossible for a human being to live without some animal byproducts. There's never been a society that existed that was "vegan", but there's plenty of vegetarian ones.

richwicks says

AmericanKulak says

Be careful, this site is Veg friendly and is exaggerating the benefits of Veg or primarily Veg diets. Truth is in temperate climes it's difficult to have a nutritious diet on Veg only. Raw Calories don't tell the whole story. Complete Proteins (not partial) and Fats are very hard to get from vegetarian in a non-tropical, non-Med climate with no imports of avocadoes, Olives, etc.

You cannot, be a vegan. Vegetarian, yeah, it's actually quite easy as you can eat eggs and dairy.

There really is no such thing as a vegan. It's impossible for a human being to live without some animal byproducts. There's never been a society that existed that was "vegan", but there's plenty of vegetarian ones.

And the most vegetarian, South India, has the highest heart disease. The healthiest populations eat fish and pickled, salted veggies with little bread or pasta.

AmericanKulak says

And the most vegetarian, South India, has the highest heart disease. The healthiest populations eat fish and pickled, salted veggies with little bread or pasta.

I was vegetarian for basically 1/2 my life. I don't think it's particularly more healthy, but you do have to eat a lot more food to function.

I still don't tend to eat meat very often, although I'm making a chicken casserole right now.

https://amandascookin.com/million-dollar-chicken-casserole/

Never had it, but I'm curious how it will turn out. I'm omitting the crackers and butter - that seems a bit over the top given the ingredients.

AmericanKulak says

Patrick says

richwicks says

Yes you could stuff that number of people into it, however, you'd not be able to feed them.

https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-feed-one-person/

About 5.5 acres per person.

So how many acres of usable land are there in the world?

Be careful, this site is Veg friendly and is exaggerating the benefits of Veg or primarily Veg diets. Truth is in temperate climes it's difficult to have a nutritious diet on Veg only. Raw Calories don't tell the whole story. Complete Proteins (not partial) and Fats are very hard to get from vegetarian in a non-tropical, non-Med climate with no imports of avocadoes, Olives, etc.

Ah, that 5.5 acres per person is indeed bullshit.

https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/

Globally agricultural land area is approximately five billion hectares

5 * 2.4 acres per hectare = 10.4 billion acres / 8 billion people = 1.3 acres per person

So each person does not require all that much land. I knew a family in the midwest whose front lawn was an acre.

One acre:

https://palexander.substack.com/p/too-late-merkel-flooded-europe-and

Too late, Merkel flooded Europe & set upon you your own funeral pyres, you Europe & Denmark are flooded by the wolf, raping across Europe, too late, you are being hollowed out, jihad by immigration

They will breed you out of existence, this is why Meloni is critical to Italy, lets see, this is what Obama sought to do America and Biden is completing it, yes, the wolf is coming via Mexico, said I

https://notthebee.com/article/hard-to-believe-the-chinese-birth-rate-is-absolutely-cratering-isnt-it

Patrick says

Ah, that 5.5 acres per person is indeed bullshit.

Right.

1 cow to 1.5 lush acres with good rotation of paddocks or 3-4 hardscrabble, non-rotated, or less intensive acres = ~500lb of useable meat, which is almost 10lb of meat/person/week for a year. And as said elsewhere, that's finicky Modern Appetites not including Bone Broth from the marrow, head cheese, organ meat, etc.

Or to put it another way, one cow/person = About 1 Eight Ounce Steak or two quarter-pounder burgers pretty much every day of year with meat to spare.

And this is organic, free range cows. Not finishing the cows or raising them entirely in feed lots, which would be much less land/cow.