The Industrial Revolution Has Led To An Incredibly Powerful System Of Elite Control

Most of the problems that we have in modern society stem from the side effects of the industrial revolution. In exchange for conveniences, order, safety, and technological advances, we suffer from existential malaise, lack of genuine pair bonding, broken familial and tribal units, chronic disease, and having to be ruled by a small group of people who possess immense centralized power. While most of you would continue to live in a post-industrial age in spite of the downsides, it is arguable to say that we certainly live in a “better” time.

The industrial revolution has allowed for two key events:

1. The control of most economic and human output of the Earth by a relatively tiny group who control the minds and behavior of billions of people.

2. Explosion in population thanks to advances in agriculture, hygiene, and medicine.

The result is we have more people controlled by less people. The controllers have the power to essentially drive the face of humanity in a way that could not have been done before the industrial revolution. Globalization, multiculturalism, and socialism are the most efficient and logical ways for the elite to assert control over the planet, and since the dawn of modern banking, they have pushed exactly those ideologies throughout the world.

The elite have convinced us that we are living in a glorious progressive age, but it’s more glorious for them than it is for us. They give us handouts through their welfare state, cheap electronics, and lax sexual morals while they gain immeasurable power and wealth, in what could be considered the most unfair trade that the common man has ever made. They put five dollars in your pocket while you relinquish your own agency and fabric of your society.

Here are nine conclusions we can make from observing how the current system works:

1. Life in a post-industrial revolution age is full of social ills and psychological suffering as humans live in sterile and unfulfilling lives, far away from what nature intended.

2. The elites have engaged in a depopulation agenda that first targets the strongest groups most capable of armed resistance against them. A superfluous population hinders their power and control objectives.

3. The demolition of our industrial system and a return to pre-industry and traditional life would increase the well-being and fulfillment of humanity, but result in the death of perhaps half the world’s population from the lack of agricorp food, especially for those who live in cities.

4. The elites want to maintain the industrial system solely for their own ends. Some depopulation, or “population control” as they call it, helps them maintain their control as technology improves and much of the masses are no longer needed to work. Their end goal is to be the primary owners of mineral, economic, and human resources on Earth, with a decreasing need on humans.

5. The control of the elites can only be eliminated by destroying the industrial system, starting with modern finance and banking. Doing so would improve the lot of humanity for the ones who survive, because they would be pulled out of the matrix and experience existence closer to its natural biological intent, but only after billions who are currently dependent on the matrix perish. Many of us would not survive.

6. Anything that degrades the system but doesn’t destroy it, while keeping the power of the elite cabal intact, along with their control on world governments and culture, will have a limited and short-term effect on improving the state of humanity, because the elite will simply use the surviving system to rebuild control. As long as modern finance exists, based on the usury and central banking format, humanity will always be controlled by a small group of merchants who can then corrupt all institutions of a society with the agenda that is most conducive to their business dealings.

7. The most harmful action to the elites in the near term is to have many children. They consider it acceptable if you embark on a life of fornication, atheism, homosexuality, consumerism, cosmopolitanism, liberalism, and cuckservativism, but they do not want you to breed those who are self-aware and may one day kill them. Unless your descendants go after the system instead of mere representatives of the systems (e.g. politicians, journalists, academics), they will not end up creating a better world for humanity, especially if they have been weakened by questionable vaccines, school propaganda, and agricorp food.

8. Having children that become pawns in the system is becoming a negative outcome for the elites. Human subjects were needed in the past to generate wealth, but technological advances are starting to make humans a net drain to their goals. It can be assumed that the mainstream promotion of homosexuality and transsexualism within a country is the signal that the population is being actively targeted for mass reductions. The immigrant agenda is more to weaken natives instead of serving for economic gain.

9. The system is currently showing signs of stress because a rapidly growing number of people are believing in ideas that threaten elite control. This suggests that the elite were too hasty in pushing the most degenerate parts of their agenda before their control programs were perfected.

From the above conclusions, we can propose three future outcomes within the next few centuries:

1. The system will be destroyed through a massive crash due to black swan events or human resistance that the elite is unable to put down. Humanity will proceed with a mass culling of the population as we re-enter a pre-industrial “dark” age.

2. The system will be fortified by the elite and humanity will be controlled even tighter. Eugenics programs will be more efficient and effective, and those living won’t even know their reproductive system is being tightly monitored and controlled (this could already be occurring). The future population will be a fraction of what it is now.

3. We will have a hybrid world of technologically advanced but depopulated countries in perpetual war with barbarian nations that reproduce strongly but lack advanced technology. Imagine a world where a few million elites in the West control military robots that try to eradicate billions of Muslims and Africans who won’t stop breeding.

The first step in defeating the elites is to understand where the battle really lies. It’s not in the left versus right debate, a controlled sideshow for public consumption, but globalism versus nationalism. It’s likely that some countries will see the successful rise of nationalism, but as long as the industrial system exists, and multinational banks and organizations can bide their time while they fund the enemies of nationalists (charging interest in the process), any nationalist resurgence would just be a short-term blip unless a determined sect tries to take down the entire industrial system. It’s clear to me, at least, that it’s not only the globalists that need to be crushed, but the very system that they created.

The only question is how you want the human population to be decimated: through the guiding hand of the elites or through the destruction of the system that most of humanity is currently dependent on.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out my book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain my operation.

Read Next: Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto Predicted The Catastrophe From Technology And Liberalism

Related Posts For You

newest oldest most voted
AlFromBayShore
Guest
AlFromBayShore
Offline

I agree somewhat on what you say about the elites but in my opinion, massive and complex government bureaucracies allow them to have that control. In these bureaucracies are self interested politicians and bureaucrats who collude with the corporate elites. These people intermingle, intermarry, and form a ruling aristocracy.

My focus is on the size and design of government. In the case of America, our national government is a vast bureaucratic complex which is used by a “natural aristocracy” to feed off people in the same way a parasite feeds off its host. The nature of a vast and complex government makes both transparency and accountability impossible. In my opinion, the design of the Constitution enabled this. Contrary to popular belief, that document was not only an expansion of government, it promotes expansion.

James
Guest
James
Offline

I would disagree about the US Constitution being designed to promote the expansion of government, in the sense that the people who wrote it, like James Madison, would be the first ones to tell you that pieces of paper do not restrain ambitious politicians and that only the determination of the People to jealously guard their own precious and essential Liberty could prevent governments from becoming fatally tyrannical. Well, those who said that the People were toofa king stupid evil and crazy to stay free for very long have been proven by history to be sadly correct, I’m afraid. I don’t blame Madison or the Constitution but rather the innate depravity of the assholy People, who are profane and pathetic and eager to sell their birthright of Christian Liberty for a small bowl of bland and lukewarm socialist porridge. The message I preach is directed to the pathetic shitty rotten assholy People who need to REPENT of their degeneracy and shitty rottenness and disgusting propensity to strain at gnats and swallow camels and to go and sell all their precious valuables to obtain vile worthless garbage in exchange. I have nothing to say to the tyrants, and only harsh and insulting truths to tell the People.

AlFromBayShore
Guest
AlFromBayShore
Offline

Your using an argument that Hamilton used in one of the Federalist essays in which he argued the responsibility of defending liberty rested with the people. My problem with that argument is that the people who formed our government (mostly Federalists) gave it vast powers, made it distant from the people, and made it incredibly complex. Being vigilant in this type of structure is incredibly difficult if not impossible.

The Constitution through its implied powers and vague descriptions of the extent of government power compound with the great deal of power given to the national government to open the door to expansion. The complexity of our government which includes the vast federal bureaucracy and the legislative process, makes vigilance an impossibility for the voter.

James
Guest
James
Offline

The basic idea ain’t complicated. A few enumerated powers delegated and everything else reserved to the States and to the People. It wasn’t just Hamilton’s argument. I think it was John Adams who said it best, that our form of government was made for a moral and religious people, and was wholly inadequate for the governance of any other. I agree with John Adams, that depraved and degenerate scumbags like our generation cannot be governed by a Constitution that limits the powers available to control us. Without the law of God written in our hearts, we need a government of unlimited powers to bring us to heel, and that’s what we get. It was also said that immoral people have need of many masters. It was said by pretty much everyone involved in the founding of the US, who all had their own way of putting it. I can’t think of even one who said out loud that a self sustaining system of liberty could be set up that would in and of itself guarantee the survival of liberty.

AlFromBayShore
Guest
AlFromBayShore
Offline

This is a long and lengthy reply. I tried to reduce it but couldn’t. I did my best. I apologize in advance.

We’ll never agree because we are different. You have an appreciation for the men who were the Federalists, Madison, Hamilton, and Adams. I view the Constitution through lens of the Anti-Federalists. One of my favorite quotes comes from a man who would have opposed the Constitution but died almost ten years before its ratification. He played a major role in influencing the Continental Congress in adopting a plan of government (The Articles of Confederation) in which the national government was subservient to the power of the state legislatures. Thomas Burke expressed a fear of giving any government too much power. His view is my view of the national government formed by the Constitution. Here is a quote of his:

“Power of all kinds has an Irresistible propensity to increase a desire for itself. It gives the Passion of ambition a Velocity which Increases in its progress, and this is a passion which grows in proportion as it is gratified.”

He said this as a response to the attempts to endow the Articles with vague and ambiguous legal descriptions of national government powers and the attempt to form an independent executive. Both of these provisions never made it to the final draft of the Articles of Confederation.

Now before you make the “Critical Period” counter-argument, I will posit that the “Critical Period” was a myth perpetuated by the men who we know as the Federalists. The economic data from the States contradict the claims. Land claim disputes between the states were resolved by those respective state governments. The Yankee-Pennamite War might be an exception but an exploration of the politics of Connecticut need to be explored (that government was taken over by land speculators). And Shay’s Rebellion had nothing to do with the alleged weaknesses of the Articles. Remember, that rebellion was put down by the Massachusetts State Militia with no bloodshed. The worst that can be said of the period is that the national government at that time only needed amending in order to provide the young nation with a standing army.

James
Guest
James
Offline

You obviously know your facts. I would say I’m not as certain of my interpretation of the facts as you are of your interpretation, but you are very thoughtful about it. I would have been a staunch anti-Federalist my self back in those days, especially regarding Hamilton’s bank. You called Madison a Federalist, but what are your thoughts on his flipping over to the Anti-Hamilton pro-Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican side? I’ve thought about whether or not Madison figured he had created a dangerous monster when he wrote the Constitution. I’ve tentatively come down on the side of thinking that the details of the form of government of a People matters much much MUCH less than the moral character of the People being governed. I used to think that John Locke was backward and retrograde because he preferred the limited monarchy system. Then I learned more about the English Civil Wars and Oliver Cromwell, and I saw his point better, even though I am still a small “r” republican.

JF16
Guest
JF16
Offline

If I might also add to your comment, there has been some discussion as to whether or not the Constitutional Convention was actually empowered to do what it did, namely, doing away with the “Articles…” and drafting a Constitution. Reading some of the documents put out by the states regarding their delegates to the convention and the powers they were given leads me to believe that they (the delegates) didn’t necessarily overstep their bounds but it is an interesting argument none the less. Especially in light of the existence of the Anti-Federalists, perhaps most notably Patrick Henry, though he would not remain an Anti-Federalist (an interesting part of his life in and of itself).
While reading up on the history of the Constitution and it’s adoption, I came across a comment where the author put forth the idea that the Constitution essentially adopted the attitudes of “bigger, more centralized gov’t” to solve the “problems” of the “Articles…”. I’m still not sure if I agree with that comment, but it certainly did force me to look at the Constitution from an entirely different perspective.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Many correct conclusions here.
But the main thesis that the “industrial revolution” as it is called is not the cause of the control of the elite, that is the Illuminist Manicheans. The opposite is true : these Illuminist merchants and bankers have imposed this industrialization for their own profit. And this industrial monster was massively imposed through credit-supported false money. Which false money is used to build these large factories and to produce millions of useless products every year.

Eliminate credit from the hearts of humans, and you eliminate the power of this Elite. With them industrialization will go away.

The root of the problem is credit.

Conservative Muslim Guy
Guest
Conservative Muslim Guy
Offline

The root problem is greed and the love of this world, of which credit is a manifestation. The usury based system of credit only took hold once the Law of God was ignored and practicalmy removed from public life. All errors come back to the state of the soul and it’s relation to God.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Wrong. Greed is not the root of credit. By credit, we mean credit in banknotes. Greed without the existence of banknotes and credit in them would not have lead us into the current situation. And indeed greed exists since the beginning of times, but credit in the current false money began only in 1694.

Steve H
Guest
Steve H
Offline

I agree that credit is a problem, but the real problem is EASY credit. It used to be that only the most worthy people got credit cards. Having a credit card used to be a status symbol. Home loans were always hard to get and you had to have excellent credit.

RonaldReaganRemix
Guest
RonaldReaganRemix
Offline

This may seem somewhat off topic, but there is a very controversial book called “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life” by Richard J. Herrstein and Charles Murray. I see many parallels between many of Roosh’s articles and the book and I would like to see the topic of IQ expanded on. Very controversial stuff; however, it should not be ignored.

Conservative Muslim Guy
Guest
Conservative Muslim Guy
Offline

Roosh,

You seem to think nationalism is the solution and opposite of globalism. However, humanity must be taken back even further; the project of nationalism is an utter failure and morally untenable.

The formation of the modern nation state took place after the Renaissance and contemporaneous to the Enlightenment. It is part of the problem, not the solution, and in fact nationalism will invariabley lead to decay. Nationalism may seem natural to human beings because it is an extension of tribalism, but blind tribalism itself was an error which one thing came to correct: religion.

You see nationalism and tribalism are both based on an us vs them disinction which is both somewhat arbitrary and morally untenable. First of all, one can and does tie their identity to several levels of reality. There is the reality of the self, of the family, of the clan, of the tribe, of the town, of the geographical area, of the nation, of the language group, of the ethnic group, of the race, but also of humanity as a whole, and beyond that as part of the pantheon of earthly creatures and even as part of the whole of reality and existence, and most importantly, as a creation of God. When I say nationalism is somewhat arbitrary, I don’t mean that a man’s country or race does not matter at all (like the left asserts), but what I am saying is that it is an error to make that the measure of greatest importance.

Historically humans were very tribal and would support their tribe no matter what; even in injustice and falsehood. They would consider men from enemy tribes as subhuman and in any case would view their own tribe as being the most superior and Noble. While loyalty and tribal bonds are a somewhat noble and natural tenancy, it also is extremely irrational, immoral and dangerous if taken to an extreme. This was an error which religion came and fixed and allowed tribes to unite together under a larger entity by shifting the axis of human identity from the self or the tribe to the Divine.

Nationalism is an extension of this error on the part of tribalism. If one studies history objectively, one will find great achievements in all of the major cultures of the world. Even if one chooses material achievements like math, science, poetry, art, architecture etc. If you average out the achievements of the four major civilizations over the past six thousand years, there is not really an appreciable difference between them such that one can assert a genetic superiority between any one of them. In any case making material measures of achievement as the standard of superiority are an error in and of themselves, as the industrial age has shown. Our current era is the most scientifically advanced and also the most morally degenerate. The correct measure of all things is the Good (I.e. morality, which btw is identical with the essence of God Himself in all major religions. Doing Good is literally partaking in the Divine.)

The problem with tribalism and nationalism is that it draws a distinction of superiority and inferiority based on an arbitrary distinction, namely the time and place a person is born and their lineage. None of these are things that people can control.

Roosh, think back to before the rise of the nation state, what did we have? We had theocracy. We had the idea of Christendom, of Dar al-Islam, etc. Identification with religion allowed brotherhoods to form beyond petty tribalism and nationalism, which are valid at their own level, but not the highest measure of all things.

If you truly want to defeat the globalists then what must be advocated is theocracy, for reasons too many to recount here. Nationalism is already more than half way to the current degeneracy we see now.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

The problem with tribalism and nationalism is that it draws a distinction of superiority and inferiority based on an arbitrary distinction, namely the time and place a person is born and their lineage. None of these are things that people can control.

This is the main reason I cannot get behind the ideas of nationalism. To me it’s akin to the caste system in India. Lots of shitty people in the top class, and lots of motivated, hard working bright guys in the low class, but their birth keeps them down.

Epoche
Guest
Epoche
Offline

Nationalism has nothing to do with a caste system.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Right. This was too long a post to go further in detail on nationalism. Nationalism and caste system are both bad because they are arbitrary stratifications as opposed to objective ones.

David
Guest
David
Offline

I believe you are in a way, projecting our shitty modern multiculturalism onto the term nationalist. In a true nationalistic society, people end up fairly similar in many ways. A nationalist country has shared values and culture. Same race, similar upbringing, etc. all of those factors bind people together in support of their nation, because their nation actually represents who they are. Nationalism only works well in these fairly homogenous situations.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

I agree, and to a degree I am conflicted about nationalism. I do see how it could be beneficial in the past, say around the 1900s. Then again, many would say it was precisely nationalism that allowed the Great War to happen, which was perhaps the single greatest blow to modern western civilization, patriarchy, and monarchy. In that case, I find it more than mildly ironic that many in the neomasculinity movement are turning to the very thing that destroyed them, in hopes that it will now save them.
The question is, who defines what the shared values and culture are? I watched Born on the Fourth of July this weekend, and the kid goes to a nationalistic parade where he gets inspired to later join the Marines and lose his legs before he even loses his virginity. Setting aside the fact that nationalism totally fucked things over for him individually, I felt some sort of nostalgia for the nationalistic parade he was attending in the 1950s. But today, the shared values and culture of America are not anything I am proud of. I don’t celebrate our promiscuity, immorality, and degeneracy, and I can’t be thankful for soldiers who travel around the world killing poor civilians.
Could nationalism be a strong force for good? Yes. Is it in reality? Not to me. And again, it is only a strong uniting positive force when there is a patriarch or monarch defining the shared values. Leave it up to the masses and you get today’s sick culture. Calling for nationalism under a democracy is a recipe for disaster.

David
Guest
David
Offline

To clarify. Nationalism only works when it isn’t arbitrary. The more multicultural a society, the more arbitrary nationalism becomes, and the less it is practiced, as seen in Western Countries with mass importation of other cultures.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Being a hard working bright person does not make you a better chief, it makes you a better servant.

And in leadership there are many times were you need to refrain from doing anything as this is the best choice at that certain moment.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

These are the illusions of egalitarianism which worships hard-working.

And what is the difference between the castes of India and the castes of America where the son of a banker becomes a banker and the son of a corporate servant becomes a corporate servant?

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

this will always be the case no matter what. We even create “tribes” be it cities,schools, sub cultures like goths skaters gangster nerds etc sports fans political ideas etc.
it doenst end.

its best to go a multi cult route of mutual respect of the tribes. Like dont antagonize the other group or mess around on their turf.
Judging them seperatly based on whats taboo or not in each others norms.
like we have 2 different standards for the sexes same with cultures.
understand their view but following it is another

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Agreed. It’s all mostly the same in the end. Islam is merely a means of social order that is more thorough than modern Christianity, but Europe had similar devices hundreds of years ago (chastity belts, strongly enforced virginity, etc.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhdrPVIBfzw

jz95
Guest
jz95
Offline

Well said. That’s why I always view these nrx monarchy-types with a sense of disgust. Republicanism/democracy may be flawed, but at least I have a chance to better my position in life due to my merits, whereas in a monarchy I’m stuck in whatever shitty class I happen to be born in.

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

Monarchy has nothing to do with caste systems. Nowadays India is a democracy and caste systems are very much alive and well…

Conservative Muslim Guy
Guest
Conservative Muslim Guy
Offline

You could have a nation state that operates as a meritocracy, a democracy is not required for that. You can also have a theocracy that operates as a meritocracy. A good example of that is Iran or the Vatican.

Eliminating castes completely is a fools errand, the best you can hope for is to allow enough social mobility for the exceptions to the rule so that your best people are doing their best work.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

The modern nation state and modern nationalism was created by the same Illuminists in order to destroy the old kings and nobles. They started it in America and in France. German nationalism was created to destroy the power of the Austrian Emperors and later to destroy the power of the same Prussian emperors who supported German nationalism from the beginning. Arab nationalism and Turkish nationalism were created to destroy the power of the Ottoman sultans. The first Arab and Turkish nationalists were Freemasons of lower masonic degrees who were controlled by European Illuminists of higher masonic degrees.

Americans who oppose the current situation have the illusion of American nationalism will save them, not knowing that their American nationalism and the mere foundation of America in 1776 as the beginning of the novus ordo seclorum is the root of all evils.

Conservative Muslim Guy
Guest
Conservative Muslim Guy
Offline

This.

АЛЕКСАНДР ВЕЛИКИЙ
Guest
АЛЕКСАНДР ВЕЛИКИЙ
Offline

So would you suggest returning to a theocratic, feudalistic, monarchist system, similar to pre-Renaissance Europe?

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

As if the modern system is not theocratic, feudalistic and monarchist.
Theocratic because the Illuminists rule in the name of the God of Light. The god with a shining eye.
Feudalistic because companies are fiefs.
Monarchist because there is a king : Jacob Rothschild

Conservative Muslim Guy
Guest
Conservative Muslim Guy
Offline

Not necessarily feudalistic or monarchist, but definitely theocratic is the way to go. For Europe, it is up to the Church (Catholic or Orthodox only, protestantism should be banned) to decide how they want to implement it.

However, too few people are serious Christians for this to actually work. The modern European has been brainwashed by secularism and even most christians are functionally atheists.

АЛЕКСАНДР ВЕЛИКИЙ
Guest
АЛЕКСАНДР ВЕЛИКИЙ
Offline

I think monarchy is the way to go.

CallMeAl
Guest
CallMeAl
Offline

I agree 100% with everything you said, Roosh. Articles like this help me articulate my own thoughts. Keep doing what you are doing. You are a great writer, up there with Fred Reed, I think.

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

I respectfully disagree with the depopulation agenda. First there is the contrary evidence that populations are rapidly increasing; second, there are methods at the hands of elitists to decrease the population that they are not using (they could end the government subsidies for children, and ramp up things like war which always thin the herd). Third, the industrial revolution is directly tied to a strong *increase* in population.

Fourth, with technological gains, a reduced population appears to me to be a logical and reasonable future. Consider how you are no longer needed to crank out widgets in a factory, or plow fields to harvest food, but instead have license to jet around and write books about banging girls. This is possible in large part because of technology. But if millions of us no longer work, how do the resources in the economy get allocated? We cannot support a world of billions when they do not work. Industrial revolution conspiracy and depopulation are two conflicting theories.

I agree with Nestor who posted here that the root problem is credit. In a fiat debt based economy, there is insufficient money to pay back the outstanding debts–new money must be created through inflation and lending in order to pay back the existing debts. (Have you seen Zeitgeist or other films which discuss this?) This is why elites LOVE increasing populations–it is an absolute requirement for their debt cycle to continue. This is also why they love immigration. Anything that increases the population decreases each person’s pro-rata share of resources, and allows new money generated through credit activity which enriches them.

As to reproduction affecting the system I would say mostly it doesn’t matter what the level of reproduction is. If Americans have a bunch of kids, the net number of homos and trannies will increase, because it is now seen as a lifestyle choice. There will also be a bunch more beta wage slaves created, which the bankers can feed off and create new debt. If reproduction is too low (never been a problem yet anywhere) but if it was, they will just immigrate in some new population. Hell, perhaps this is the true reason of the EU refugees. EU could easily end the Syrian war and stop refugees if they wanted to.

Finally, I don’t buy the globalism vs nationalism because I think it’s a poor metric to classify “good” and “bad” people based on when and where they were born.

I respectfully urge you to revisit this idea with an open mind, and consider if a preconceived ideology (elites want to reduce the world population, a common right wing theme) is tainting your conclusions.

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

First there is the contrary evidence that populations are rapidly
increasing; second, there are methods at the hands of elitists to
decrease the population that they are not using (they could end the
government subsidies for children, and ramp up things like war which
always thin the herd).

Except for a few spots in Africa, everywhere on Earth the birthrates are on the wane, even in countries that are undergoing a demographic winter. Latin America is a great example of this, in a few short years those societies will shift from a “pussy paradise” to gray societies where women will be scarce and become sausage fests since there will not be enough for everyone to go around, compounded with financial problems because these countries will become old and weak before becoming rich or even middle class. Let alone East Asia where demented anti-natalist campaigns have ensure social decay and war in the end (either that or transform tens of millions of Chinese and Indian males into faggots overnight) due to the scarcity of women.

If reproduction is too low (never been a problem yet anywhere) but if
it was, they will just immigrate in some new population.

See Europe. As for your “they will just immigrate in some new population” I think the US and Europe are doing that madness. The results are clear to all involved…

This is why elites LOVE increasing populations–it is an absolute requirement for their debt cycle to continue.

If that were the case, they wouldn’t be poisoning whole populations for half a century, reducing the quality of sperm and eggs for a long time. The only population reduction method they haven’t tried (yet) is whole scale war and that is only because they need some time to control all variables (or at least most of them) and ensure they will surivive it; it would be a pity if some misplaced IBM were to fall over their bunkers…

redpillyogi
Guest

if millions are turning gay, I don’t see how that won’t become a pussy paradise. I say let them go gay/tranny, the numbers work out better for straight males.

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

if you are replying in reference to the situation in Latin America, my prediction is they will become sausage fests a la USA, I mean a few young hotties (for which young and old will compete, thus reducing the trust and feeding their egos) and hordes of old women and uglified ones (SJWs are invading the region as we speak, in Panamá for the first time I saw a native “blue hair gall, think of Ariana Grande with skrillex, blue hair and tattoos, a sad sighting…)

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

Declining birthrates but still increasing populations. A birthrate cannot constantly increase, or else we would reach infinity.
Scarcity of females vis a vis males is a different issue than population levels.
The bottom line for me, if the illuminati or whoever is trying to foment depopulation they are failing miserably.

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

Declining birthrates but still increasing populations.

The birthrates have declined so much that the alarmists of the UN have revised their predictions multiple times. Scarcity of females is related since the number women of a desired age bracket (17-32) is a function of the current population size and the size of their cohorts in the younger brackets (babies and children) who are slated to become desireable women. The women in this age group are sought after not only by men of their own age bracket but by men in their late thirties, forties and even fifties. If the birthrates are on the wane, there will be less women for the men in the current youngest age brackets (<29 yo) thus creating a bottleneck (sausage fest) hence scarcity is what will follow.

The bottom line for me, if the illuminati or whoever is trying to foment depopulation they are failing miserably.

Depends on the timescale you are looking at…

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

I’m looking at this timescale. I’m sorry, but people who complain about depopulation make me struggle to not call them trolls. When, if anything, there is exploding population levels that should be reigned in. If the graph was flipped over the vertical axis,I could get on board with the alarmism. But it’s slope is so high, it’s absurd. It’s like arguing patriarchy is a problem because there are still 2 men out there who believe in patriarchy.

http://one-simple-idea.com/WorldPopulation.jpg

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

Sorry but you are naive chump if you believe the world population will reach 13 billion by 2050. Not even the alarmists (and probably pederasts) at UN believe that http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

Moreover current trends in the birth rates globally tells us another story:
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/images/worldgr.png

Bottom line: First world countries will only experience growth (an artificial and a bad one that will trigger other ills) through immigration, not through births and many underdeveloped countries will experience stagnation and decline thereafter, slow at first and swift in the end since in many cases their transition would from demographic structures supported by 4 children per women rates to demographic structures supported by 1.5 children per women a whole different ball game. The problem for the west is not so much the numbers but the age structure. No one advocates a six fold increase in the population, however a population collapse is not a good thing either (unless you are in the pharma and pampers business and that’s only in the short term). Besides it’s bad for the game (I already explained why).

In any case there will be far less people by the end of this century than today, our elites are already seeing to that…

spicynujac
Guest
spicynujac
Offline

I will cross my fingers and hope you are correct.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

why would I trust these numbers ? the appeal to statistics is a well known fallacy.

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

The population growth in the East is doing that. The West is in decline.

Search for birth rates by country. Check out Spain, for example. The native population is simply finished.

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

The birth-rate ought to be 2.1 per every fertile female in order to merely replace ourselves. Go look at Western countries and you’ll see it’s already below that in most countries. Fact: The West is dying. Chiefly, Caucasians are a failing race on the road to extinction. If there’s another World War involving Europe our population won’t be able to recover its losses and the entire continent will likely collapse as its overrun by Arabs who treat Caucasians in the same way Nazis treated Jews in Poland.

Make no mistake, Mr. Spicy, the West is about to be destroyed. The statistics are there to see for yourself – collapse of birthrates, and horrendous immigration problems. Couple this with the fact that most European men are now, shamefully, sissies. It’s unpleasant to admit, but 10 Arab men could likely shred 100 Frenchmen in a matter of minutes.

Something must be done.

I’m taking a second wife soon and I’ll likely have 25+ kids before I die via a few wives, but I’m a rare man. What’s worse is I cannot find Western women who want to marry and have children… hence the West’s reproduction problems, duh. Western women are frankly reproductively retarded thanks to feminism. But this means all my wives are Asian. There’s nothing I can do about it, though. The Caucasian race is set for extinction unless we can force Western women off contraception before it’s too late, but with enough men like me at least our individual bloodlines and culture will live on and some remnant of the West may be saved.

KermitTheeFrog
Guest
KermitTheeFrog
Offline

Interested in hearing about your plan of polygamy. Even around TRP I’ve never seen someone advocate it. But I think secretly most guys would love that arrangement, if they had the means.

123
Guest
123
Offline

Sorry, I don’t understand how many wives do you have? Curious. LOL )

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

When I talk about these things, I AM only just getting started. I’m only 29 years old, see, and I only just decided to start a huge family a year ago (so of course it hasn’t happened yet because these things take planning, effort, and time).

So, right now I only have 1 wife and 2 children (both girls). Unfortunately, my wife is 8 and 1/2 years older than me and leaving her fertile years. Don’t ask me how I ended up with an older woman. Dumb shit happens.

Anyway, she’s not bad. She’s Thai, and she’s agreed to let me find a younger wife/s so long as I take her to live in New Zealand first.

So, late this year I plan to ditch her in NZ with the kids whilst I go hunt down a teenage bride in India. It won’t be hard to find a hot but impoverished Desi girl who’s just happy to be with a handsome white guy with money and doesn’t mind that I’m already married. I’ll rinse and repeat to get a Chinese girl after that. Get them all preggers and repopulate NZ!

Why am I telling you all this? Who are you, anyway? You followed my old account, too.

Anyway, polygyny is doable with Asian women, and I plan to have more kids than Genghis Khan if I can. I plan to write books about polygyny and how-to finding Asian brides, too. I’ll write the first book next year basing it on the experience finding a Desi bride (with the entire quest fully photographed and written like immersive fantasy like Lolita).

123
Guest
123
Offline

If you don’t like i follow you i can unfollow. I don’t identify your profiles.
If you are 29 thus your wife is 37. She can have more kids. She is young woman. Matter is if you love her or not.
But you build your life. You know better what will make you happy. But will be children happy if you have another family?

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

Follow me if you enjoy watching a troll maul fluffy ducklings.

Wife is 38. Yeah, she could have 1 more baby. Maybe we will, but she can’t have 25+ more like I want.

I don’t think my daughters would object to more siblings, but the oldest one is 6 and I don’t ask her for life advice, thankfully. I think she’ll be happy so long as she gets to go to KFC once a week.

Large families are a blessing, anyway. Think about it. I’ll never have to worry about dying alone in a government retirement home or anything – my many children will take care of me when I’m old. They’ll help each other through life, too. Family is a team, and the larger the better. Family is a resource of incredible wealth and stability.

123
Guest
123
Offline

Sorry, it is not my business. But do you think is ok to leave a wife because she is older? What did you think about before?
Like throw away an old toy. Imagine if woman left you because you are old. 
For children always there is a stress if parents split. But frankly your thoughts are a bit childish.
I don’t judge you. Maybe you don’t love your wife anymore and you are too young to be married. I understand you want new woman. But in 5 years maybe you will want another one etc etc…

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

God’s, you’re weird!

Okay. I’m not “leaving” my wife, I’m just getting a second wife.

And yes it’s okay to do thi

123
Guest
123
Offline

if your wife find another man even just for sex. Will you accept it? Ok for you?

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

Of course it’s not okay. Men are different than women. She’s a wife with a womb who gets pregnant from having sex yet she needs me to take care of her and her children, but I sure ain’t caring for her bastards. If she wants to continue to enjoy my protection and investment then the price is fidelity.

123
Guest
123
Offline

If I understood right children are yours. You have to provide them and take responsibility. Even if she has another man you obliged to provide your children. No sense to talk to you. Our values are too different. Good luck!

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

If she has another man then I will take the kids and leave.

123
Guest
123
Offline

Yep, another woman will be very “happy” to live with 2 kids . LOL

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

You have a very negative view of women to think they’re all too selfish to enjoy the company of another woman’s children.

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

And yes it’s okay to do this because she’s old. She’s not the same babe I married and I’m less attracted to her now. Why should a man be forced to stay chaste for a woman he’s barely attracted to?!

I do love her, too. But love and sexual attraction aren’t the same thing.

The stress for children you speak of only occurs when the parents who split up are bitter at each other. Since me and my wife are neither truly splitting nor are we bitter, the children will be fine.

123
Guest
123
Offline

Woman also can leave her older husband only because she is not attracted to him as before? Or because she has dream to have in her bed young man with nice body?
There are human and family values.
Believe me women also think about sex with other men, they just put on top family. Not all but in general.

If woman does it , all man’s society will say she is a whore. Right?
If man does it – it is ok. What about that your wife gave you her best years? 38 years old – is a young woman. She can be desirable and attractive.
If you want she looks young do it. Give her money for beauty salons, buy nice clothes. Make her beautiful. I would look at you how you would look after 2 pregnancies. When you are 45-50 y.o. you will change your mind I am sure. From another hand doesn’t matter how old we are. Or person is mature or not.
We should appriciate what we have. Hope your wife will find more responsible and mature man with whom she will blossom. Sorry for saying this. I don’t want to offend you. Nothing personal. Seems you think like a selfish child who wants a new toy. Happiness to you!

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

Good luck to any older woman who thinks she can woo a much younger man!!!

You’re being a cunt, anyway. You automatically assume that I’m mistreating my wife or that she doesn’t support me. Why? You plainly have prejudice against polygyny. Don’t you realize that it’s possible for multiple women to be satisfied by a single man?

123
Guest
123
Offline

Good luck! Be happy .
Learn to be polite first of all. I didn’t tell you that you are a cunt. I don’t care about you and your wife. Live your life.

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

You said things much worse than name calling.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

When times are hard, “good” and “bad” people unite to defeat the enemy but nationalism with the right leaders at this moment in history is the only answer to the degenerate globalism. Sticking to your traditions and culture and doing the opposite of what our cosmopolitan masters tell us has become the subversive path. Personally I have never bought the myth that earth is overpopulated, I don’t trust government statistics. That’s the lie they propagate so they can overcharge you on anything, because every time you water your lawn, a kid dies somewhere in Africa, yeah right..

Lunostrelki
Guest
Lunostrelki
Offline

Money and comfort are nowhere near as important as well-disciplined children and a close-knit community. Industrial civilization has brought us comfort but tried to destroy the latter two things. The only way to counter mechanized production and standardized propaganda is to use biological [re]production and homeschooling to spawn children by the dozens that would have been aborted in liberal wombs and instill in them not just upright values but an upright sense of identity.

It’s like voting, but with very delayed results and more options.

Shlomo Shekelberg
Guest
Shlomo Shekelberg
Offline

“small group of merchants”

Roosh, I’m afraid this phrase sounds vaguely anti-Semitic … please remove as I’m sure you don’t want your readers to get the wrong impression …

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

f Muslims and Africans who won’t stop breeding

dude thats the norm, we are suppose to eat breed and fight.
THough worth noting iran lebanon an jordan have fertility below 2.11.
Ironically they are the most hedonistic middle easterns

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

worth noting that this heavy industry not only has soften us but destroyed our nature and wildlife.
People in the 3rd world are going hungry cuz of it

James Mast
Guest
James Mast
Offline

Yes. World War 3 will be globalists vs. nationalists. It will start off as a civil war with America as the catalyst.

Little Bo Peep
Guest
Little Bo Peep
Offline

Roosh, we ought to call our secret cult The Dark Knights, I reckon. It’s the best name I can come up with.

Mike G
Guest
Mike G
Offline

One thing that angers is me is no one sees the connection between scientific management (aka Industrial Age bureaucratic micromanagement like all these shit corporate jobs out here) and Communism. Thomas Jefferson warned if Americans let the banks and corporations take over that heir progeny would wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered. Also, doesn’t anyone see the disproportionate amount of Fortune 500 Jewish control and ownership? Just like all these bullshit ideologies they made up they do it all in lockstep with the Protocols to build a New World Order.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

“. The control of the elites can only be eliminated by destroying the industrial system, starting with modern finance and banking”

I’ve always felt that banking = evil. Your possible scenarios you outline are plausible.

Mary Mason
Guest
Mary Mason
Offline

“my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti830ur

two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti830u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsLittleGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti830o….,…

Shelia Rickard
Guest
Shelia Rickard
Offline

“my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!tr236ur

two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !tr236u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMachineGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!tr236o….,

Miguel P
Guest
Miguel P
Offline

“3. We will have a hybrid world of technologically advanced but depopulated countries in perpetual war with barbarian nations that reproduce strongly but lack advanced technology. Imagine a world where a few million elites in the West control military robots that try to eradicate billions of Muslims and Africans who won’t stop breeding.”

This will definitely not happen. In places like India, Africa and even the Middle East, SJW ideology is already being introduced. Remember Obama’s speech in Africa a couple of years ago, where he immediately spoke about homosexual and women’s rights. Their societies will undergo the same decline as ours.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

Well you know, when my teen son spends too much time on his cell instead of doing his homework, I cut the wifi at home and he magically becomes nicer and starts to focus. Destroying the system is easy, target TV and internet first, no more distractions.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

As if his homework is not a tool of indoctrination.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

Still better than watching miley cyrus.

Bendys
Guest
Bendys
Offline

You really should comment more. A person with your intelligence and insight is very much needed in today’s media dominated by trolls with agenda.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Examples of SJW ideologies that were already introduced there since the 19th century: democracy, rights, equality, liberty, fraternity, elections etc.

Brutus Maximus
Guest
Brutus Maximus
Offline

How about a group of hackers blocking all porn and gambling on internet ? man that would unleash some fury and speed up the network instantly.

TSK
Guest
TSK
Offline

I would like to see a balance between the two but I would personally prefer more err on the side with real genuine human contact.

Technology is nice and all but it also comes with the downside.

Being in a place where you are more likely to be tuned with the nature, have easy access to nature made materials (plants and herbs that are considered illegal today) and genuine contact with other humans but at the same time have some technology benefits. You can’t have any extremes on either end. A good balance. Proper cultural values and manners are taught and valued by the society as whole and people understand and internalize the truth better and men and women know their roles.

But there is an irony and conundrum to all this. While internet and fast access technology does retard human interaction, the fact that we’re able to connect with the world wide and filter out the unwanted and connect with people who share similar values and thoughts.

Of course reality has shown that you can’t have all the nice things because there will be a trade off and not everyone will be able to see the lenses without any filter.

You can create idealistic world or close to it and you cannot attain perfection. Power structure will always be called to order and humans will find their role in a natural hierarchy society where the strong and smart will always thrive and role the weaker tribes with less resources. It’s about accumulating resources, options and power. That’s what it all comes down to. Majority of war throughout the history including the modern war has always been fought for those reasons: Money, the need for power and control, need for more naval spaces and sea domination, Natural resources, Man-made resources, land, and even for women.

On the media and on the surface, it makes it seem like certain countries are fighting for religion, freedom, etc… but dig deep inside and you will find out it’s all about fighting for resources.

Don’t be close to government or anyone who works for the government and try to stay as FAR away from the government as possible and also be aware that you will need to know some basic survival tactics and know how to take care of yourself before you make that move and decide to opt out of the matrix as much as possible. In today’s day and age, it’s hard to opt out completely and you must understand to control your urges and your state of mind.

Even if you won the lottery or bought your dream car, your state of mind should be the same before and after phase. Know that all that can be lost in a second and understand that you are just one of the billions of people out there.

Humans tend to be easily corrupt and hypocritical and have “us vs them” mentality and the need to belong in certain group or tribe. So if you easily accumulate wealth and decide to see the commoners as nothing more than a typical slave, you will start have “fuck the whole world” mentality and you won’t be any different from the elites right now who control the system today.

bummm
Guest
bummm
Offline

You need to control the jews. They are a great people. Extremely smart. But they´re activity must be monitored. And some check and balances should be put in place. They are too greedy. BUt you need them. Because they are smart. And ingenious. Any country must extract the good and repress the bad from their people.

Have you searched the anunakis. Just google. It´s pretty obvious we descend in part from aliens. That´s our difference from all other beings.

What the fuck happened to them. This is a good question. Maybe they annihilated themselves like we will probably do to ourselves.

Smart Alex
Guest
Smart Alex
Offline

Thank God I’m one of the elite

Break it up and go back to work plebs…move along…nothing to see here.

James Lucrative
Guest
James Lucrative
Offline

The industrial revolution was a beautiful time. Not just technologically but culturally. I see the world wars not as a war of nations but of ideas. Capitalism built the biggest guns and won out. But at that there are still different manifestations of capitalism and liberalism has been the dominant kind for over a century. My fear though is liberalism peaked in the 90s and post 9/11 plus the internet developed “evil Biff timeline capitalism” where it’s just kike Mark Zuckerberg banning you all the time. Noone has shit, noone does shit, it’s just the misery of fat lonely people. I’d rather deal with hard labor and wars than that for humanity.

Anything would be bettet than this cyberpunk bullshit. Soviets would have been the best route but honestly Nazism and fascism isn’t looking half bad compared to the cuckoldery of modernized moderator capitalism.

OldFan
Guest
OldFan
Offline

This sounds a little bit like Classical Marxism – except there is no contrived happy ending. Your endgame looks a lot like the Eloi and Morlock situation – dystopia all the way.

I wish it did not look so plausible, I really do.

Darwin
Guest
Darwin
Offline

I recommend books by Richard Lynn on IQ, genes, race and eugenics.

Mary Mason
Guest
Mary Mason
Offline

“my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti830ur

two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti830u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsLittleGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti830o….,..

Ajuna
Guest
Ajuna
Offline

Romanticizing the past are we? The pre-industrial world was effin brutal. Yeah, the “demolition of the industrial systems” would eliminate some of the vices we live with now. But it would also reintroduce the vices that were prevalent in the pre-modern world: plague, famine, scarcity, slavery, constant warfare, random brutality, mass rapes……

And how delusional does one have to be to believe that there is an effort of “population control” on the part of the “elites?”

Blinko23
Guest
Blinko23
Offline

> But it would also reintroduce the vices that were prevalent in the pre-modern world

True dat.

> And how delusional does one have to be to believe that there is an effort of “population control” on the part of the “elites?”

Not delusional at all. There is and has been population control targeted at white European peoples, in every single western country, since the mid 60s. I’m not white myself but I can see the agenda clearly.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

Agreed. This following photo is from Germany’s Zanzu site aimed at migrants. It’s easy to do the math on this image.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Concerning these vices :
1) plague : 1918 influenza pandemic.
2) famine : See what is happening in Venezuela now.
3) scarcity : Scarcity is a lie.
4) slavery : Yes it exists, and if you are a company employee then you are a slave.
5) constant warfare : 60 years ago Europe was destroyed by war. Check Syria now.
6) Random brutality : Visit torture rooms of armies, police and intelligence around the world.
7) mass rapes : Lies, lies and more lies.

So, your only arguments are lies, lies and more lies.

Cronus Nyx
Guest
Cronus Nyx
Offline

what about space travel and colonising the stars? your view is pretty pessimistic

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Engineer Anders Bjorkman explains here clearly how it is impossible for humans to travel into space and come back alive :

heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Yes, even in sciences, we were fed lies.

jz95
Guest
jz95
Offline

In the end, what does it really matter? Why would we want to spread our bullshit to the rest of the universe. We fucked up well enough on Earth.

bapani
Guest
bapani
Offline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki

By her consort Anu, Ki gave birth to the Anunnaki, the most prominent of these deities being Enlil, god of the air.

Their relation to the group of gods known as the Igigi is unclear – at times the names are used synonymously but in the Atra-Hasis flood myth the Igigi are the sixth generation of the gods who have to work for the Anunnaki, rebelling after 40 days and replaced by the creation of humans.[3]

just as the term Anunnakku (Anuna) was later used to refer to the gods of the underworld. In the Epic of Creation, it is said that there are 300 lgigu of heaven.”[4]

The Anunnaki appear in the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish.[5] In the late version magnifying Marduk, after the creation of mankind, Marduk divides the Anunnaki and assigns them to their proper stations, three hundred in heaven, three hundred on the earth.

Like with the masons. Take away all the nonsense and noise. And read this as history. Take away religion. And simply analyze this events as facts. And try to give some rationality.

It´s pretty clear if there weren´t some intervention we would still be monkeys.

There´s some talk about negative blood being a royal blood and not being contaminated by the rhesus gene.

About pedophilia. I believe it´s used as a ritual. And there is some perception it takes away the energy of the child. There´s some theory if you drink a child´s blood when they are in panic the level of stress will give their blood higher energy. There´s one simpson episode Mr. Burns receive a transfusion from Bart´s blood and get´s a boost of energy. Same goes with some african tribes which believe cannibalism.

It´s just a fucking freak show. Of completely disgusting and perverse human beings.

As time passes homosexuality will no longer be able to blackmail the puppets and expect to see more pedophilia cases brought to public. For the rebellious one.

It´s also fun to see there´s no movie about pedophilia regarding elites. But cahtolic church gets a movie every year from the hollywood jews. When there´s clearly a lot of material.

I would definitely would enjoy if you would go deeper into the annunaki´s and origins of humankind. Even if you want to leave out the alien part. For not sounding like a lunatic.

Just two more facts:

Hillary wanted to go down the alien theory.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-ufo/

Supposedly catholic church is opposed to this path since it will break/tear down their dogmas.

Also and this is even more lunatic. There´s some talks the elite want to pretend the earth is suffering a fake alien invasion. And wipe out a part of population and make the remaining part accept more restrictions on their liberties.

There was a phrase of Obama which really stuck with the migrants crisis:

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gop-widows-orphans-2015-11
Obama unloads on Republicans: ‘Apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans’

Do you know who widows and orphans are.

SlickyBoy
Guest
SlickyBoy
Offline

Not sure the explosion in population is everywhere. The more urbanized and advanced a society gets, the fewer children it produces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

Elie Challita
Guest
Elie Challita
Offline

Really, Roosh? You honestly think that the general population in feudal times had more power relative to the nobility?

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

He who issues the currency has the total power.

Elie Challita
Guest
Elie Challita
Offline

That applies to every single human government in history.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

What is your original objeciton then?

Elie Challita
Guest
Elie Challita
Offline

That Roosh is a fucking idiot if he thinks that pre-industrial times were the “good old days”. Unless he’s fine with being a serf in medieval Europe, that is.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Spoken like a true serf.

You are a serf to the Illuminists at Veeva Systems Company whose major shareholders are:

Brown Capital Management, Inc.
Wellington Management Company, LLP
JP Morgan Chase & Company
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)
Wells Fargo & Company
Federated Investors, Inc.
BlackRock Advisors, LLC
First Trust Advisors LP
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Price (T.Rowe) Associates Inc
Price (T.Rowe) Science & Technology Fund
Federated Kaufmann Fund
Wells Fargo Growth Fd
Price (T.Rowe) Mid Cap Growth Fund
BlackRock Global Allocation Fund
Brown Capital Management Small Company Fund
First Trust Dow Jones Internet Index (SM) Fund
First Tr Exchg Tr AlphaDEX Fd-FT Health Care AlphaDEX
JP Morgan Growth Advantage Fund
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund

You are a serf just like your fathers, Lebanese peasants who were serfs to some Lebanese emir or sheikh.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Typical Lebanese peasant. I have hundreds like you under my command, here in Lebanon where I live.

Elie Challita
Guest
Elie Challita
Offline

Whatever medication you’re on, bud, it probably isn’t working.

fatherofthree
Guest
fatherofthree
Offline

The serfs in Medieval Europe were more sovereign than you and I are.

They owned the same type of weapons as their feudal lords. In contrast, today if you’re lucky to own a weapon, it is nothing compared to what the government can pull out.

Elie Challita
Guest
Elie Challita
Offline

Go tell that to the spartan helots. Peasant rebellions up until the renaissance were bloody affairs, but always failed

hamfish
Guest
hamfish
Offline

And to think, you sat and typed all that out. You really must love the sound of your own keyboard. Nobody cares.

Joe Soap
Guest
Joe Soap
Offline

You authoritarian types sure like this back to the land stuff. Hitler with his lebensraum, Pol Pot with his year one, Mao with his cultural revolution. None of it works and never has. It’s never going to happen. Nobody is going to allow billions to starve just so a bunch of nut cases can live as gentlemen farmers. Progress only moves forward. Never backwards. Best get used to it.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Billions, including you, will starve when the Illuminists end their useless corporations.

Joe Soap
Guest
Joe Soap
Offline

No doubt you have your bunker full of ammo and canned spam all prepared. Although why you would want to live in this terrible world you imagine is beyond me.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

No. I own wide pieces of land and cattle.
The Illuminists cannot control everything. Indeed, they still don’t own most of the land on this earth. But on the other hand, they control corporations and the money that makes the assets of these corporations.

TSK
Guest
TSK
Offline

I read some comments here and it seems like there are agreements and disagreements about Nationalism which is fine. Let me add my inputs here.

The reason why Nationalism is an answer to globalism is because nationalism is more likely to unite peasants and ordinary citizens against Government if “shit hits the fan”.

I will put example here.

Let’s say you are White American. If your neighborhood is composed of Arab Muslim family of five children, Hispanics sharing five bedroom with 18 people living in one townhouse, Asian family, Black family, White man who is a “transgender”, and some Mixed race couple and you didn’t know any of them in person and a natural disaster happened to sweep by like hurricane or earthquake… will you be quick to wanting to help those folks VS (if your neighbors were “ALL-American whites”)?

People likely identify with each other based on race, heritage, ethnicity, religion, common beliefs, etc.

The whole point is a subset choice that brings common people together vs the government (in case the government becomes too totalitarian)… That’s why nationalism (with sensible patriarchy) is an answer towards globalism. A culture that knows the true nature of women and also makes the best choice for their own people. To me, this is common sense and it always has been.

Race is important and so is knowing the truth about race, women, and etc.

Regardless, the government always has the power to screw over their common people. It just happens to be in America, people are divided over almost everything and people sometimes hold unnecessary fear over “news” from media.

You must visualize with your own eyes, experience it and then come up with conclusion. Don’t blindly follow anyone or the media. Use your own eyes, brain and connect the dots. It all starts to make sense from there.

Nationalism unites people (against the tyrant government).

If your fellow people are not the same color, same ethnicity, same background, same culture as you, then will unity easily work out? The government can create proxys and other “useful idiots” to play the rabble rouser to further divide citizens. It’s easier to control the emotional masses when they are divided. Don’t you think?

Bottom line: if I was an elite, that’s what I would do. Truth.

fatherofthree
Guest
fatherofthree
Offline

It’s not in the left versus right debate, a controlled sideshow for public consumption, but globalism versus nationalism.

They’ve got this base covered too. Hitler was a staunch nationalist but also an agent for the globalists i.e. a double agent. Putin now plays similar role and by the looks of it Trump will play the same role in the State.

Otherwise, an interesting article.