Aborting the New Economy
Content
Large scale abortion is the greatest crime in human history. In New Zealand the 'statistical genocide' of nearly 400,000 Kiwi babies is ten percent of our current population and is unprecedented in scale, scope and social impact. The DVD '180' by New Zealander Ray Comfort in America is an mere street survey stirring less than accurate analysis. What is needed is to examine abortion from a deeper perspective; asking how does it affect us all? My contention is, that surrounded as we are by the failures of both Marxist labour surplus-value and Capitalist market-value supply-side (moneterist tinkering) economics, we need to look again deeply at raw-primitive, demand based economics. The failed ecoconomic solutions all around us , including 'recommendations from the international bankers suspiciously stem from Thomas Malthus.1 The implications of abortion in this view are vast. As abortion in New Zealand has led to population depredations far greater than any disease, Boer war, Gallipoli, Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo or natural disasters compounded ,were ever able in our entire history to inflict on us.
1
Many of these adherents blithely believe in the casual 'elimination' of the 'others', the poor or weak or differently coloured, sexed or acculturated. Malthusianism coupled with Darwins survival of the fittest ideology this has led to both Fascism and Communism murdering huge numbers in concentration camps, gulags, stalags, holocaust genocide, censorship, torture and more atrocity.. In our current future both globalists and eco-feminists want to murder even more for the 'good of some planetary utopia'. Saying so puts me on their death lists.
Abortion has always been linked to economics and larger social issues. The link began with post-war development bank policies which noted coincidentally how wealthy western countries had low birth rates and poorer ones high birth rates. So they recommended lowering birth rates to poor countries 2: and made receipt of aid and loans dependent on such policies being implemented. Naturally this became something of a self fulfilling prophecy as aid funding and investment boosted, if temporarily their economies. The appearance of success could occasionally be pointed to. Who today remembers the Colombo plan and CORSO, and other United Nations and Commonwealth programs that did the same thing. This was the thinking of the 1970s. Yet, conversely, almost all the poor nations Malthusian prophet Dr Paul Erlich perversly predicted starvation and famine for, because of so called high birth rates, have boomed exactly one generation later. All population policies have repercussions or consequences approximately forty years later, the 'error of
2
Hoping by that mechanism alone to generate wealth and prosperity in that country.. This is still recommended today.. Bankers imaginations can only see where two things can be brought together on the page but not whether it be a lie or no. Yet we can see here, when the 'generation' time element is brought in, how two things on a stand alone basis being true observation, just being spoken together in one phrase do not make them cohere. Just as two strangers getting into a lift being truly a male and truly a female, we cannot assume sex occurs, or that they are married. Bankers however must see the world suspiciously.
coincidence', as above, notwithstanding.3
Current political troubles in Europe are engendered precisely because of competing birthrates, especially in Holland: one could take the strong hint from this to increase emphasis on demand economics or 'population economics', (see my online essay in 8 parts 'artpos': 'An Open Letter to the Prime Minister''), in order to save liberal democracy from the far right. Europes overall population has fallen by four percent and we see the economic result now; the 'European indigenous' peoples were once 20% of the World, now just Eight percent, in thirty years time maybe just three percent, in sixty, perhaps one percent; the worlds most endangered indigenous people group. Russia's population fell in the decades prior to its 1989-91 economic collapse. The most European of South American nations Argentina collapsed early in the 21st Century. Population depredations feature prominently in its previous decades too. The most 'westernised' country in Asia, Japan, has both a falling population and its most drastic political changes in fifty years.
3
Politics has short time-horizons built into it; particularly based around democratic elections. This one of the notable flaws with democracy as seen by de tocqueville in his book 'Democracy in America'.
Once 123 millions it is now heading south of 111 millions, yet still 54 millions live comfortably within that small area of Japan known as the Tokyo basin. Demonstrating that where people have the best health and longevity and where even more people desire to live, visit and raise a family is exactly in the worlds crowded spaces. Can it be that we actually do like each other after all? The more the merrier. How many of the 70 million who visit Tokyo every year want to visit, stay or live in the deserted wild places of the earth, virtually no one. Wherever we see falling populations can be seen subsequent economic eclipse as well; in almost every case. The 'falseness' of the immigration/emmigration solution can be seen described in my online video as above. The vertical column just widens and gets fatter that's all, its economic health problems remain with a thicker waist to diagnose. Nothing has really changed. Except I've noticed that the imported voters thus stuff the ballot boxes of the importing party at their time of arrival - a no-win game for the taxpayers at large, just the politicians. It is not about numbers per se it is about an internal dynamic within a fertile population. My basic conclusions about migration figures is
they merely thicken or thin the population column and are neutral as to positive-negative economic affects overall. Barring the occasional investor millionaire contributions canceling beneficiaries and dependents in competing for housing and jobs, the source of price rises, bankruptcy and unemployment for generational kiwis. Otherwise the social effect and affect is another matter entirely and is not really addressed here. Conversely, almost all the poor nations Malthusian prophet Dr Paul Ehrlich predicted starvation and famine for, because of high birth rates, have boomed. One generation later, as all population policies have repercussions approximately forty years later, the 'error of coincidence', as above, notwithstanding.
The belief then was in 'priming the pump' Michael Joseph Savage style. However we heeded too our own advice . If it were good for the poor to do it and become wealthy. Perhaps we could do it more to ourselves, cranking up our own advice, buy it back, heed it more, repeat one more time. Undertaking more population engineering with the selfish thought that if we increased these depredational tendencies we could become
even more wealthy. Theoretically as anyone can see this must be nonsense because if you reduced the population say to just ten people, or one million, they would own everything (and have to maintain it as well) in the country. If every one were rich what would the price of bread be? If all were billionaires the price of a Billionaire bakers loaf would be hundreds of thousands. Otherwise why would she bother to get out of bed and start up the cold ovens on a winters morning early: anything less wouldn't be seen as being worthwhile to add to her stash. So are the ten all multi billionaires or the one million four times better off? Think it through, if realty were paper it might be, but if realty is not the map but the dirt, dust and mud of the ground it cannot be. Marxists likewise have an excessively romantic jealousy about the supposed excess profits of capitalist effort: much of it is virtual money having literally no value unless it is kept in digital 'paper' play. The great gambles of our lives in the speculative markets could disappear overnight via some glitch in the digital algorithm and colocated servers that constitute the big majority of automated trading fortunes today. Paper and digitised pen are powerful but not all powerful. Priming the
pump when one already has a primed pump merely floods the ground with wasted human effort; and in an economic context may be very dangerous as it will load us down with an unpayable debt. How dangerous then to trust ourselves as National has done to a 'fixer' who owes no deep allegiances to New Zealand whatever as he has made his big money overseas. My pick is he will abandon New Zealand like Menem in Argentina: though Menem won office through a socialist political base and thoroughly betrayed this constituency. Given my argument perhaps they could do no other action than what could be seen with the beliefs available. My hope is that it is not too late to see, think and act otherwise than currently prevailing ideologies as all of them are completely inadequate. Utopian theory and reality are absolutely opposed as can be seen in the core beliefs of Marxists so driven by theory as to a workers party or state. Yet Bolshevik leadership, thinkers and activists were all of the intellectual middle classes, they traveled on trains, wore fine clothes, had leisure, did not work, owned factories (Owen, Wedgewood, Engels) wrote books, read, spoke well; their methods were politically astute middle class
insertions into the political process; Duma and Parliament, and 'eliminated' the useful labouring class colleague as soon as possible (Beria). Their utopia became dystopia in the hands of Kim ilSung, Pol pot, Stalin, Mao, Burmas Marxist Junta, Castros Cuba and Tibet, East Germany and so on, everywhere bolshevism went people had to be fenced in to stop them leaving. If you really wanted a working class movement by ideology and vision, leadership, method (they ride in trucks) and bully boy practice you would have to be fascist which is totally working class from the core to the outer membership. Noting however neither option works here in that both are military, people flee them, their state kills people in vast numbers (but far far fewer than practised and promoted by eco-feminism), run huge concentration camps of slavery, and are both of them utterly repugnant ideologies that should be completely rejected by all humankind. The silly duality which says if you are not one then you are of the other, limits human thinking to just those options. I put it to you there are dozens still on the table, humanism, raw non-party bloc voting jury style democracy (untried), jubilee year governance (Jewish debt redemption
every fifty years), mixed 30 year raw democracy-benign limited term (5 year: chosen from all previous governance) comptroller/executive/dictatorship, amazonian (ultra feminist), queer aristocracy (gays run everything), and many other you can think of (but have to think of applicability, sustainability, cost and constituency served). Zero population growth was once promoted by experts but adverse results are immediately apparent: if housing stock, for instance is sufficient already for four million then there is no need for the theoretical 'one more house', 4 so builders, carpet layers and so on would be without work, they could not then buy at the local dairy and so on until a sharp contraction caused a change in zero population policy. Tax receipts would be down and what little money left for education, student loans, health might be reduced for unemployment payments, 'miracle money' or secret banking strokes-of-the-pen cash is just printing money and dilutes the value of the currency. Of course it is hard in a contracted economy to recommend the raising of children but this is the only hope for an economically sustainable future, curiously noting it is small families that often have one car each
4
Theoretical mind, as it stands for any number of additional but foregone housing construction options.
for husband wife and two adult children: while larger families travel in just one shared people mover. Low birthrate countries in the west were once responsible, while growing wealthy on industry (a longish phase), for most of the worlds pollution and caused acid rain and dead fish lakes and rivers. High birthrate nations were agricultural, rural and pre-industrial, their focus was on natural cultural and community values: they needed no ethnic ideology to actually reinforce what they were doing: but who wishes for themselves the dubious 'romance' of poverty and disadvantage. Most slash and burn runoff fed the fish out to sea in a bacteria/plankton/fish series of links. Discoloration and 'muddiness in the coastal waters' was more an aesthetic 'pollution' than biological or environmental. Early environmentalism made no distinctions. The poor nations advantage was to obtain the machinery and systems of industrialization off the shelf without long periods of development so they could leapfrog stages going directly into cellphone networks without ever having a copper wire phase for example. There is absolutely no need at all to limit population in order to acquire a wealthier status or condition for ones people.
The development bank advice is entirely erroneous and only appears correct because funding rode on the back of the policy. Similarly embargos prove not that 'non-democracies do not work' (China shows they can) but only that embargos can work. Embargos prove nothing about political systems only that embargos colour a straight look at comparing different policy driven systems and thus are useless at proving a corrupt American democracy, ultimately successful. A Chinese or Vietnamese mixed economy can be successful to varying degrees: this advance is based on having a 'population hinterland' of poverty in order to sell into: not exactly a desirable prior condition. More desirable is sustained birth rate driven growth. It is exactly the point of this article to show some ways or suggest ways in which birth-rate driven population growth is the only reliable indicator for sustained and maintained economic growth; it depends on no particular political system, a monarchy, dictatorship, peoples democracy, autocracy, aristocracy or mixed system would do as well as any other providing high population growth is birth-rate driven. Population as an issue is thus vastly bigger, more important, of
overwhelming significance that politics, philosophy and even history itself are but puppy whelps of concerns compared to it.
5
Population is everything we have ever desired or dared hope
for. There is nothing more important on the whole earth than this. Boom or doom is our only choice in regard to long run population development: remembering only that whatever one does forty years (one generation) awaits for the contrarily adverse or positive results that must occur. Coincidence of wealth and current birthrate is of no connecting logic whatsoever, here again we are being taught the logic of breeding, and in a shyly agricultural country too: the reproductive consequences of ignoring the birds-and-the-bees. To think that this is where the politically correct liberal view of all this came in forty years ago with the hippies. How deeply ironical. Saving the cost of raising kids for feminist freedom, make absolutely no mistake, this is what it all about, has a major flaw built right on into it: what happens when the kids grow up - yes I
5
Even the planet savers environmental concerns are more organically served by it as people eat food and require natural clothing and energy: as we touched upon it is low, negative and zero birthrate nations who pollute the most, or who pollution everywhere. People love more people. Smaller birthrate nations are selfish, use more of the resources, are doomed to poverty and the bankruptcy of their institutions that pretend environmental concern, try to politically dominate the world and have evil desires to destroy the world and eliminate rivals to avoid sharing the resources and wealth. To love birth is to love everyone; to destroy birth is to murder life itself and hate everything. We are not judged on our dreams of misshapen utopia but admire they who in reality build life and love.
know, they don't exist - that's the point too, they don't exist ( but yet these are the 'kids we could have afforded while wealthy' and could also then have existed), one cannot have it both ways, yet if they did as you cannot 'save the cost of raising' without missing their economically active absence beyond 20 say as well; in working, taxpaying, ratepaying, buying, selling, buying art, listening to your music, coming to University, paying student fees, taking books out and so on if dead, non-existent, kaput, zeroed, nullified. This statistical tracery, this ghost of a chance lost, would have otherwise been active for fifty contributing years more. Their average lifetime earnings each would be $4 million per person by the numbers of aborted New Zealanders, nearly 400,000 approximately to date since 1972: I assure you they are really missing by any number of measures. They are not even theoretically the kids we never could have had: we could have had them and did not'. A vast and colossal sum of around $2.3 trillion dollars: yes, you read that right, 2,300,000,000 dollars. Albeit over the next fifty years, but why add to it by decriminalizing abortion? This is the answer, the only believable one, to the huge economic losses occurring
permanently in the western world. The spill over effects in Asia will recover but not us. This recession is historical in the sense that the human race has never ever voluntarily been here before in history. In fact all cultures and civilizations take measures to do this to their enemies and halt anything that causes anything like this to themselves. This activity is probably the absolute demarcation of what constitutes a culture or civilization or not: does it preserve itself? The limits of life are well known, seventy years appears to be our best hope, the compass of it is so small, we have to do everything possible within it. How can we now preserve ourselves except by safeguarding reproduction, that is what sex is for, society can condone no other.
The puny eco-feminist 'savings' amounted to just $50,000 apiece and we spent the lot on sex, gambling, luxuries, fun, holidays and other drivel not aware the day of reckoning was to come: poverty and bankruptcy for most, owned outright by other people, slaves in more than metaphor.
No wonder we can snort at Prime Minister John Keys borrowing
debt of $35 Billion over the past five years, and watch him squirm puzzled by the growing shortfall in tax receipts. What government can paper over a vast economy wrenching abyss with so little? To throw a small (but unpayable) debt at such a large eco-feminist loss is laughable. The loss to debt ratio is 600 to one dollar if just abortion is considered: 6,000 to one if contraception is included (base year is always 1972). The ironical 'cost saved' to overall negatives ratio is 1:11,500, or for every one dollar of debt owed, a 'debt' remember! He is trying, in perplexity, not having thought these thoughts here outlined, to paper-over an oncoming loss of eleven thousand five hundred dollars for each and every one dollar borrowed. It simply cannot be done that way. No wonder there was a one billion dollar plus shortfall in tax receipts recently; coming years will see many more, and larger shortfalls in tax receipts. Greece and Spain are happening here, right here right now. It is foolish to ignore it, intelligence says we must address this urgently with all the vigour at our collective command; rioting and protest will avail us not one whit. John Key may just squeak by until the election, any Government after will have to fix this smartly or perish
quickly. Look for a sad cycle of governments and elections. Our politically correct nightmare has cost us everything. What mining, exploitation, asset sales by whatever government will not now take place. Even the existence of our Universities and institutions may be at stake (Argentina and Russia still had the support of pre-recession America and Europe to bolster some recovery; we will not) and the wider independence of New Zealand too unless we rapidly invert the politically correct stance of 'she'll-be-right' liberalism and move to an aggressively Kiwi pro-natalist society. Which the people are underneath anyway. Otherwise we face the most abject nightmare imaginable, total real loss of effective personal freedom, economic necessities being forced of the grossest kind, no funding of pet ideologies, poverty for many, bankruptcy and effective slavery for most. We must do this aggressively, strongly and forcefully to restore centuries proven principles of cultural continuity through reproduction. The insane statistical genocide of our own New Zealand people must cease. Abortion is the most vile and ghastly crime in New Zealand against our humanity.
3065words
1
Many of these adherents blithely believe in the casual 'elimination' of the 'others', the poor or weak or differently coloured, sexed or acculturated. Malthusianism coupled with Darwins survival of the fittest ideology this has led to both Fascism and Communism murdering huge numbers in concentration camps, gulags, stalags, holocaust genocide, censorship, torture and more atrocity.. In our current future both globalists and eco-feminists want to murder even more for the 'good of some planetary utopia'. Saying so puts me on their death lists.
Abortion has always been linked to economics and larger social issues. The link began with post-war development bank policies which noted coincidentally how wealthy western countries had low birth rates and poorer ones high birth rates. So they recommended lowering birth rates to poor countries 2: and made receipt of aid and loans dependent on such policies being implemented. Naturally this became something of a self fulfilling prophecy as aid funding and investment boosted, if temporarily their economies. The appearance of success could occasionally be pointed to. Who today remembers the Colombo plan and CORSO, and other United Nations and Commonwealth programs that did the same thing. This was the thinking of the 1970s. Yet, conversely, almost all the poor nations Malthusian prophet Dr Paul Erlich perversly predicted starvation and famine for, because of so called high birth rates, have boomed exactly one generation later. All population policies have repercussions or consequences approximately forty years later, the 'error of
2
Hoping by that mechanism alone to generate wealth and prosperity in that country.. This is still recommended today.. Bankers imaginations can only see where two things can be brought together on the page but not whether it be a lie or no. Yet we can see here, when the 'generation' time element is brought in, how two things on a stand alone basis being true observation, just being spoken together in one phrase do not make them cohere. Just as two strangers getting into a lift being truly a male and truly a female, we cannot assume sex occurs, or that they are married. Bankers however must see the world suspiciously.
coincidence', as above, notwithstanding.3
Current political troubles in Europe are engendered precisely because of competing birthrates, especially in Holland: one could take the strong hint from this to increase emphasis on demand economics or 'population economics', (see my online essay in 8 parts 'artpos': 'An Open Letter to the Prime Minister''), in order to save liberal democracy from the far right. Europes overall population has fallen by four percent and we see the economic result now; the 'European indigenous' peoples were once 20% of the World, now just Eight percent, in thirty years time maybe just three percent, in sixty, perhaps one percent; the worlds most endangered indigenous people group. Russia's population fell in the decades prior to its 1989-91 economic collapse. The most European of South American nations Argentina collapsed early in the 21st Century. Population depredations feature prominently in its previous decades too. The most 'westernised' country in Asia, Japan, has both a falling population and its most drastic political changes in fifty years.
3
Politics has short time-horizons built into it; particularly based around democratic elections. This one of the notable flaws with democracy as seen by de tocqueville in his book 'Democracy in America'.
Once 123 millions it is now heading south of 111 millions, yet still 54 millions live comfortably within that small area of Japan known as the Tokyo basin. Demonstrating that where people have the best health and longevity and where even more people desire to live, visit and raise a family is exactly in the worlds crowded spaces. Can it be that we actually do like each other after all? The more the merrier. How many of the 70 million who visit Tokyo every year want to visit, stay or live in the deserted wild places of the earth, virtually no one. Wherever we see falling populations can be seen subsequent economic eclipse as well; in almost every case. The 'falseness' of the immigration/emmigration solution can be seen described in my online video as above. The vertical column just widens and gets fatter that's all, its economic health problems remain with a thicker waist to diagnose. Nothing has really changed. Except I've noticed that the imported voters thus stuff the ballot boxes of the importing party at their time of arrival - a no-win game for the taxpayers at large, just the politicians. It is not about numbers per se it is about an internal dynamic within a fertile population. My basic conclusions about migration figures is
they merely thicken or thin the population column and are neutral as to positive-negative economic affects overall. Barring the occasional investor millionaire contributions canceling beneficiaries and dependents in competing for housing and jobs, the source of price rises, bankruptcy and unemployment for generational kiwis. Otherwise the social effect and affect is another matter entirely and is not really addressed here. Conversely, almost all the poor nations Malthusian prophet Dr Paul Ehrlich predicted starvation and famine for, because of high birth rates, have boomed. One generation later, as all population policies have repercussions approximately forty years later, the 'error of coincidence', as above, notwithstanding.
The belief then was in 'priming the pump' Michael Joseph Savage style. However we heeded too our own advice . If it were good for the poor to do it and become wealthy. Perhaps we could do it more to ourselves, cranking up our own advice, buy it back, heed it more, repeat one more time. Undertaking more population engineering with the selfish thought that if we increased these depredational tendencies we could become
even more wealthy. Theoretically as anyone can see this must be nonsense because if you reduced the population say to just ten people, or one million, they would own everything (and have to maintain it as well) in the country. If every one were rich what would the price of bread be? If all were billionaires the price of a Billionaire bakers loaf would be hundreds of thousands. Otherwise why would she bother to get out of bed and start up the cold ovens on a winters morning early: anything less wouldn't be seen as being worthwhile to add to her stash. So are the ten all multi billionaires or the one million four times better off? Think it through, if realty were paper it might be, but if realty is not the map but the dirt, dust and mud of the ground it cannot be. Marxists likewise have an excessively romantic jealousy about the supposed excess profits of capitalist effort: much of it is virtual money having literally no value unless it is kept in digital 'paper' play. The great gambles of our lives in the speculative markets could disappear overnight via some glitch in the digital algorithm and colocated servers that constitute the big majority of automated trading fortunes today. Paper and digitised pen are powerful but not all powerful. Priming the
pump when one already has a primed pump merely floods the ground with wasted human effort; and in an economic context may be very dangerous as it will load us down with an unpayable debt. How dangerous then to trust ourselves as National has done to a 'fixer' who owes no deep allegiances to New Zealand whatever as he has made his big money overseas. My pick is he will abandon New Zealand like Menem in Argentina: though Menem won office through a socialist political base and thoroughly betrayed this constituency. Given my argument perhaps they could do no other action than what could be seen with the beliefs available. My hope is that it is not too late to see, think and act otherwise than currently prevailing ideologies as all of them are completely inadequate. Utopian theory and reality are absolutely opposed as can be seen in the core beliefs of Marxists so driven by theory as to a workers party or state. Yet Bolshevik leadership, thinkers and activists were all of the intellectual middle classes, they traveled on trains, wore fine clothes, had leisure, did not work, owned factories (Owen, Wedgewood, Engels) wrote books, read, spoke well; their methods were politically astute middle class
insertions into the political process; Duma and Parliament, and 'eliminated' the useful labouring class colleague as soon as possible (Beria). Their utopia became dystopia in the hands of Kim ilSung, Pol pot, Stalin, Mao, Burmas Marxist Junta, Castros Cuba and Tibet, East Germany and so on, everywhere bolshevism went people had to be fenced in to stop them leaving. If you really wanted a working class movement by ideology and vision, leadership, method (they ride in trucks) and bully boy practice you would have to be fascist which is totally working class from the core to the outer membership. Noting however neither option works here in that both are military, people flee them, their state kills people in vast numbers (but far far fewer than practised and promoted by eco-feminism), run huge concentration camps of slavery, and are both of them utterly repugnant ideologies that should be completely rejected by all humankind. The silly duality which says if you are not one then you are of the other, limits human thinking to just those options. I put it to you there are dozens still on the table, humanism, raw non-party bloc voting jury style democracy (untried), jubilee year governance (Jewish debt redemption
every fifty years), mixed 30 year raw democracy-benign limited term (5 year: chosen from all previous governance) comptroller/executive/dictatorship, amazonian (ultra feminist), queer aristocracy (gays run everything), and many other you can think of (but have to think of applicability, sustainability, cost and constituency served). Zero population growth was once promoted by experts but adverse results are immediately apparent: if housing stock, for instance is sufficient already for four million then there is no need for the theoretical 'one more house', 4 so builders, carpet layers and so on would be without work, they could not then buy at the local dairy and so on until a sharp contraction caused a change in zero population policy. Tax receipts would be down and what little money left for education, student loans, health might be reduced for unemployment payments, 'miracle money' or secret banking strokes-of-the-pen cash is just printing money and dilutes the value of the currency. Of course it is hard in a contracted economy to recommend the raising of children but this is the only hope for an economically sustainable future, curiously noting it is small families that often have one car each
4
Theoretical mind, as it stands for any number of additional but foregone housing construction options.
for husband wife and two adult children: while larger families travel in just one shared people mover. Low birthrate countries in the west were once responsible, while growing wealthy on industry (a longish phase), for most of the worlds pollution and caused acid rain and dead fish lakes and rivers. High birthrate nations were agricultural, rural and pre-industrial, their focus was on natural cultural and community values: they needed no ethnic ideology to actually reinforce what they were doing: but who wishes for themselves the dubious 'romance' of poverty and disadvantage. Most slash and burn runoff fed the fish out to sea in a bacteria/plankton/fish series of links. Discoloration and 'muddiness in the coastal waters' was more an aesthetic 'pollution' than biological or environmental. Early environmentalism made no distinctions. The poor nations advantage was to obtain the machinery and systems of industrialization off the shelf without long periods of development so they could leapfrog stages going directly into cellphone networks without ever having a copper wire phase for example. There is absolutely no need at all to limit population in order to acquire a wealthier status or condition for ones people.
The development bank advice is entirely erroneous and only appears correct because funding rode on the back of the policy. Similarly embargos prove not that 'non-democracies do not work' (China shows they can) but only that embargos can work. Embargos prove nothing about political systems only that embargos colour a straight look at comparing different policy driven systems and thus are useless at proving a corrupt American democracy, ultimately successful. A Chinese or Vietnamese mixed economy can be successful to varying degrees: this advance is based on having a 'population hinterland' of poverty in order to sell into: not exactly a desirable prior condition. More desirable is sustained birth rate driven growth. It is exactly the point of this article to show some ways or suggest ways in which birth-rate driven population growth is the only reliable indicator for sustained and maintained economic growth; it depends on no particular political system, a monarchy, dictatorship, peoples democracy, autocracy, aristocracy or mixed system would do as well as any other providing high population growth is birth-rate driven. Population as an issue is thus vastly bigger, more important, of
overwhelming significance that politics, philosophy and even history itself are but puppy whelps of concerns compared to it.
5
Population is everything we have ever desired or dared hope
for. There is nothing more important on the whole earth than this. Boom or doom is our only choice in regard to long run population development: remembering only that whatever one does forty years (one generation) awaits for the contrarily adverse or positive results that must occur. Coincidence of wealth and current birthrate is of no connecting logic whatsoever, here again we are being taught the logic of breeding, and in a shyly agricultural country too: the reproductive consequences of ignoring the birds-and-the-bees. To think that this is where the politically correct liberal view of all this came in forty years ago with the hippies. How deeply ironical. Saving the cost of raising kids for feminist freedom, make absolutely no mistake, this is what it all about, has a major flaw built right on into it: what happens when the kids grow up - yes I
5
Even the planet savers environmental concerns are more organically served by it as people eat food and require natural clothing and energy: as we touched upon it is low, negative and zero birthrate nations who pollute the most, or who pollution everywhere. People love more people. Smaller birthrate nations are selfish, use more of the resources, are doomed to poverty and the bankruptcy of their institutions that pretend environmental concern, try to politically dominate the world and have evil desires to destroy the world and eliminate rivals to avoid sharing the resources and wealth. To love birth is to love everyone; to destroy birth is to murder life itself and hate everything. We are not judged on our dreams of misshapen utopia but admire they who in reality build life and love.
know, they don't exist - that's the point too, they don't exist ( but yet these are the 'kids we could have afforded while wealthy' and could also then have existed), one cannot have it both ways, yet if they did as you cannot 'save the cost of raising' without missing their economically active absence beyond 20 say as well; in working, taxpaying, ratepaying, buying, selling, buying art, listening to your music, coming to University, paying student fees, taking books out and so on if dead, non-existent, kaput, zeroed, nullified. This statistical tracery, this ghost of a chance lost, would have otherwise been active for fifty contributing years more. Their average lifetime earnings each would be $4 million per person by the numbers of aborted New Zealanders, nearly 400,000 approximately to date since 1972: I assure you they are really missing by any number of measures. They are not even theoretically the kids we never could have had: we could have had them and did not'. A vast and colossal sum of around $2.3 trillion dollars: yes, you read that right, 2,300,000,000 dollars. Albeit over the next fifty years, but why add to it by decriminalizing abortion? This is the answer, the only believable one, to the huge economic losses occurring
permanently in the western world. The spill over effects in Asia will recover but not us. This recession is historical in the sense that the human race has never ever voluntarily been here before in history. In fact all cultures and civilizations take measures to do this to their enemies and halt anything that causes anything like this to themselves. This activity is probably the absolute demarcation of what constitutes a culture or civilization or not: does it preserve itself? The limits of life are well known, seventy years appears to be our best hope, the compass of it is so small, we have to do everything possible within it. How can we now preserve ourselves except by safeguarding reproduction, that is what sex is for, society can condone no other.
The puny eco-feminist 'savings' amounted to just $50,000 apiece and we spent the lot on sex, gambling, luxuries, fun, holidays and other drivel not aware the day of reckoning was to come: poverty and bankruptcy for most, owned outright by other people, slaves in more than metaphor.
No wonder we can snort at Prime Minister John Keys borrowing
debt of $35 Billion over the past five years, and watch him squirm puzzled by the growing shortfall in tax receipts. What government can paper over a vast economy wrenching abyss with so little? To throw a small (but unpayable) debt at such a large eco-feminist loss is laughable. The loss to debt ratio is 600 to one dollar if just abortion is considered: 6,000 to one if contraception is included (base year is always 1972). The ironical 'cost saved' to overall negatives ratio is 1:11,500, or for every one dollar of debt owed, a 'debt' remember! He is trying, in perplexity, not having thought these thoughts here outlined, to paper-over an oncoming loss of eleven thousand five hundred dollars for each and every one dollar borrowed. It simply cannot be done that way. No wonder there was a one billion dollar plus shortfall in tax receipts recently; coming years will see many more, and larger shortfalls in tax receipts. Greece and Spain are happening here, right here right now. It is foolish to ignore it, intelligence says we must address this urgently with all the vigour at our collective command; rioting and protest will avail us not one whit. John Key may just squeak by until the election, any Government after will have to fix this smartly or perish
quickly. Look for a sad cycle of governments and elections. Our politically correct nightmare has cost us everything. What mining, exploitation, asset sales by whatever government will not now take place. Even the existence of our Universities and institutions may be at stake (Argentina and Russia still had the support of pre-recession America and Europe to bolster some recovery; we will not) and the wider independence of New Zealand too unless we rapidly invert the politically correct stance of 'she'll-be-right' liberalism and move to an aggressively Kiwi pro-natalist society. Which the people are underneath anyway. Otherwise we face the most abject nightmare imaginable, total real loss of effective personal freedom, economic necessities being forced of the grossest kind, no funding of pet ideologies, poverty for many, bankruptcy and effective slavery for most. We must do this aggressively, strongly and forcefully to restore centuries proven principles of cultural continuity through reproduction. The insane statistical genocide of our own New Zealand people must cease. Abortion is the most vile and ghastly crime in New Zealand against our humanity.
3065words
