Population Pyramid and Retirement Age Scam

Please study the video below, scrolling through the population of New Zealand forecast. I started the video in 2020, and you can see that looking ahead in time, at no point does the age of those over the age of 65 exceed the total of those below that age. This means that the taxpayer can at all times look after those who have retired.

The NZ government always raises the issue of retirement when they've mismanaged the economy. What they want to do is keep people working longer to bring in more money. Bear this in mind over the coming months. As NZ slips into debt, it'll use the ageing population as an excuse to make everyone work longer. 

Oligarchs Rule Western World

Somewhere along the line, democracy died. Today, countries throughout the developed world are ruled by oligarchies, or plutocracies:

 

Collapse of the Western World

 Has the collapse started, and will Australia be the next Argentina?

The Fall

It occurred to me today that I may get to see the fall of western civilisation. Incredible, I know, but it may happen. All the pre-conditions exist; a total lack of faith in institutions and our way of life, economic failure caused by corruption, political interference and gross incompetence, tyranny and the removal of free speech and self-expression, including the arts.

This is particularly evident in the developed English speaking world, but not limited to it. Across the OECD, it is not an exaggeration to say we may be heading for complete collapse, total system failure. Civil war is now openly contemplated, incredible.

But, what caused this and what is the solution? Lack of education is the cause. That's right, everything flows from that; feelings of hopelessness, despair, lack of initiative and a reluctance to work or take risks results from a lack of education. Furthermore, people who lack an education often no longer aspire, and if they do, they aspire to the wrong things, things that make no material difference to everyday lives. If you have an undereducated and ignorant populace, they can be ruled by tyrannical and self-serving rulers. 

I can hear people say, no, we need better healthcare. Oh really? What is the point in living longer, just to be slave to a system? 

I then hear people say, we need freedom of speech. OK, but if uneducated then the people don't know how to use that speech. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, check out comments on social media. People there are so ignorant of basic facts, and so unable to develop any kind of cogent argument, that night soon becomes day.

I believe, certain interests want to keep it this way, they do not want the people advanced enough so that they think for themselves. 

I often use the example of Catholic schools in largely Protestant countries. Faced with prejudice, Catholics simply started their own schools.

The solution to our current predicament is to get schools up and running, schools that will teach the lessons that need to be learnt. This is a combination of what to know and how to think, the two run together like hand in glove. Once you have a general level of accomplishment, things will happen as the next generation will demand change, or they'll simply take control and make it happen. 

Global Population Decline

Park this one under; will someone tell the Green movement to 'shut the hell up'. If the worldwide population is set to decline, why are we chasing our tails with their Eco nonsense? Won't emissions reduce as the fewer consumers belch less emissions (heh...too many cows - get it)?

New Zealand is an interesting case. The replacement level of the population is 2.10 births per woman. The last time NZ was at that level was 2012. Yes, the rate of births has declined significantly over time, from 1960 when each woman had 4.10 children, on average, through to today where women have about 1.60 children. Within this long term trend, the birth rate has fluctuated; NZ dropped off in the 1990's, then built it back to 2012's level, and now things have dropped off again. 

Below I embed an Al Jazeera video looking at the topic, but I disagree with a lot of the rationale used. I think the cost of living is directly to blame. Where families are supported and where incomes are sufficient, people still have babies. 

Right now, we are faced with governments trying to kill us, destroy us, tax us into oblivion and offer no support whatsoever, so what do you think is not going to happen? That's right, they're not having kids is what is not going to happen.

What I am saying is that New Zealand's record proves that despite having a high standard of living and an educated workforce, that given the right conditions, the birth rate can be maintained at no less than replacement levels.

But, hang on, Africa has a fast growing population, the average age of sub-Saharan Africa is about 18. They're poor right? Right, but the cost of living is not so bad and they have resources coming on stream. Off the back of those resources and the related employment it creates, plus the lower cost of living, they can have large families. There is a strong incentive to get out there and earn, to make the family richer. 

People look at poorer countries and assume they'll have large families, but when you look closely, you'll find their pace of development is high. Their cost of living is low, and barriers to entry for business and professionals are not insurmountable. Larger families can grab a greater share of this wealth being created. Think of this as a fairer distribution of wealth.

Meanwhile, in the West there are many barriers to entry. It takes too long to become qualified when entering the workforce. By the time people are fully up to speed, they're in their thirties and for women, they have a far narrower window through which to make babies.

If you want to see birth rates rise; support families, remove barriers to entry, exploit resources and lower the cost of living.

Greens Can't Be Trusted

The Greens are almost always wrong about everything and here's why:-

Myth: the world is over-populated.

Wrong: we are not even close to being over-populated. I'll give you this factoid to illustrate; if you took every person on planet earth and sent them to New Zealand's Stewart Island, they'd fit standing up shoulder to shoulder.

Here's a map of Stewart Island:-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Stewart_Island_map-en.svg/260px-Stewart_Island_map-en.svg.png

Another way of looking at this, I've flown the Siberian route from Tokyo to London, done it twice in fact. It takes twelve hours or thereabouts and during that flight about nine hours is spent flying over wilderness. The only time it is obvious that you're flying over population is the three hours coming down to London over western Europe.

Or if you don't like that example, try Los Angeles to London, same result, flying over the US and Canada, you look down and struggle to find any evidence of humanity.

Myth: Kyoto agreement and the rest will save the planet

Wrong: these so-called climate change agreements are there to protect Europe's interests and to transfer wealth from the industrialised world to the second and third world.

Why is 1990 the line in the sand with Kyoto? Why not 100 BC or 100 AD or any other year for that matter? The answer to this is simple; Europe knew that they had natural gas supplies coming on stream later in the 1990's and that at 1990 their emissions were unusually large. Hence they'd be able to easily meet their targets because their emissions were going to fall anyway, seeing as natural gas is far friendlier than burning fossil fuels.

I remember Nick Smith, that weaselling Minister for climate nonsense in New Zealand grandstanding around Kiwiland with his doctorate in civil engineering. outright lying to Kiwis about why they needed a new tax to save the planet, as if such a small nation could do anything about it. What Smith said and what was an outright lie, was that Kiwis would never be paying Russia to not cut down trees.

Why was Nick Smith telling a lie? He would have known about the Marrakesh amendment to Kyoto that did contain a provision that amounted to paying Russia to not cut down trees. That is a transfer of wealth from the first world to the second world. Outrageous communist nonsense, from those who have, to those who have never done a day's work in their lives.

Look at this another way if you don't like the above example. Imagine that that good old freedom fighter and consolidator of sensible societies everywhere, Genghis Khan, lived earlier, around the time of Hadrian. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective as trees stood in his way. There would have been no sweeping across the steppes as he'd have been dodging the forests, he'd have had to keep to the coastlines of the Black Sea and when he did that the Romans would have picked his armies off. They had a navy and they'd make landings behind him, cutting off his supplies.

Do you see my point? The Black Forest is called that because no light penetrated. It was vast, but now it's just this quaint patch of greenery.

Why the frig are we, new world people, expected to pay for their stupidity, that is, Eurotrash wingnuttery that saw them cut all their trees down. Any climate solution must involve Europe putting their trees back to create a carbon sink of some value.

Myth: Greens are really cute fluffy bunnies.

Wrong: the Greens everywhere are just the communist party re-branded. Back in the 70's and 80's members of the Greens today were often communists and no-one voted for them, ever. When the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed, or the regimes just morphed into totalitarian capitalism, these ideologues decided to jump ship and acquire a brand that was saleable. They chose Greens.

It's easy to see they're communists if you look carefully enough; they think the state is always right and the individual should submit to it, they don't like private property and they think profit is bad, and they're generally in favour of loose morals and try to undermine traditional family values. More importantly they oppose western industrialised countries having strong armies. Oh dear, don't be obvious there Greens.

The worrying thing is that Green ideology appears attractive to impressionable young people so it's over the us oldies to put these young people right. My suggestion, and I've done this with my own children, is never let anything Green get a free pass. Ridicule, object, condemn, but do not let Greens have a say in anything as they're the enemy and want to destroy our civilisation and must not be allowed to.