Generational Dynamics World View News

[tim]

The globalists and the elites of the country are deceived. The devil always throws them under the bus. But division and chaos is a larger part of the plan, and the powers that be know that christian europeans are the only real bulwark against the state, so they do their best to propagandize them (and this is also why they hate Russia and China is on the shit list too). That main form of propaganda, as far as fertility or fecundity go, is feminism. Grab a cubicle job while you waste your most fertile and attractive years to men, then complain when they don't want you post 30 when you are supposedly "ready" to have a family. Ha. Promote promiscuity so men also see that you are not their first; convince women to reward guys who are not and won't be their husbands with their most prized assets (first love, virginity, etc).

By the way, yes, there are also too many men out there, not that we can't survive with many men, but rather we promote dysgenic rearing of kids through welfare and unstable families, single moms, etc.

As a millennial I have been observing for years how women have been deceived by feminism and are miserable. The millennials are now reaching their 30's and are starting to understand work is just work and isn't how you should define yourself or value your life. Some of the most successful women in corporate America are absolutely miserable while other women who took the traditional path are happy and pleasant to be around.

Now that these women are past their prime in their 30's they are spiteful. A woman at any age can find a man somewhere to sleep with them, but not commit to them and give them what they instinctively want (home and children) whether they know it or not.

They then have nothing to pursue in life other then their job and leftist politics. Its going to get a lot worse.

The parallels we have to Weimar Germany are all there. When the hard times come the stage will be set for a strong leader to seize total control.

[DaKardii]

Here's a much more comprehensive set of data for US fertility rates.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/103 ... 1800-2020/

According to the data in the above link:

[*]The fertility rate was in the 6s from the early 1800s to the early 1840s.
[*]The fertility rate was in the 5s from the late 1840s to the early 1870s.
[*]The fertility rate was in the 4s from the late 1870s to the late 1890s.
[*]The fertility rate was in the 3s from the early 1900s to the early 1920s, and again from the early 1950s to the early 1960s.
[*]The fertility rate was in the 2s from the late 1920s to the late 1940s, again from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, and again from the late 1990s to the late 2000s.
[*]The fertility rate was in the 1s from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, and again since the early 2010s.

[Higgenbotham]

The effects of nuclear radiation on children are devastating and is something I hope to never experience.

Who ends up benefiting from the year they were born is going to depend on when the war begins and when the nuclear weapons are launched.

The risk of nuclear war is definitely increasing, as we've been documenting in the Nuclear War thread. I may have been too optimistic on the subject of nuclear war and you may well turn out to be correct.

[Guest]

Grab a cubicle job while you waste your most fertile and attractive years to men, then complain when they don't want you post 30 when you are supposedly "ready" to have a family. Ha. Promote promiscuity so men also see that you are not their first; convince women to reward guys who are not and won't be their husbands with their most prized assets (first love, virginity, etc).

You forgot to mention that these women are now fat, covered in tats and piercings (in the strangest of places), and look fifteen years older than they are. "Body positivity" (that is a term vomitted up from Hell) is telling women that they are beautiful no matter how revolting they actually look. And the worst part is that these fat women have such high standards. They don't want a fat guy that is their true equal. I have worked with fat women that tell everyone in the office they are looking for a guy with an eight pack...The modern Western women is clinically insane.

With the economy imploding, the West will soon be like the East: older men of means marrying women in their early twenties (or even late teens).

[tim]

The effects of nuclear radiation on children are devastating and is something I hope to never experience.

Who ends up benefiting from the year they were born is going to depend on when the war begins and when the nuclear weapons are launched.

The risk of nuclear war is definitely increasing, as we've been documenting in the Nuclear War thread. I may have been too optimistic on the subject of nuclear war and you may well turn out to be correct.

I am still amazed that anyone, especially students of Generational Theory, doubt that the next crisis war will be nuclear. The U.S. dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan towards the end of the WWII, nuclear weapons have already been used in warfare. Had the Axis had nuclear weapons they would have used them on America.

The G.I. Generation knew this and were preparing for it. To quote my post from the other thread:

Even before the world's first atomic bomb exploded in the summer of 1945, those familiar with its power warned that the only effective civil defense against such weapons would be the complete redesign of the American nation. "If the race for nuclear armaments is allowed to develop", Manhattan Project scientists warned in the Franck Report in June 1945, "the only apparent way in which our country can be protected from the paralyzing effects of a sudden attack is by dispersal of those industries which are essential for our war effort and dispersal of the populations of our major metropolitan cities." It would be prudent, Leo Szilard wrote a few weeks after the atomic bombing of Japan, to undertake a ten-year plan for the relocation of thirty to seventy million urban Americans. Large cities could continue to exist, Szilard said, "but they might have to be built in certain shapes," perhaps rectangles one mile wide and fifty miles long. (Compact circular cities could be too easily destroyed by a handful of bombs.)

[Guest]

The collapse in birth rates makes this a good time to have a child. We had one last year and are planning to have another one next year. There are a lot of advantages to having a child when the birth rate is low.

My father was born at the birth rate low in 1933 and I'd noted all the advantages he got from that. For example, he graduated college with an accounting degree from a mediocre state school and got 33 job offers. After picking what he thought was the best job offer, promotions were easy to get and he went as far as he wanted to.

Regardless of what the future brings, kids born today will be advantaged relative to kids born a few years ago when birth rates were a lot higher. Since my first child was a girl, she will also be advantaged by having her pick of hungry males who are a few years older than her and will vastly outnumber her cohort. I plan to teach her how to take full advantage of that. If my next one is a boy, I have to hope he hits near the low in birth rates.

My first big advantage in having a child last year was to negotiate a low hospital bill for the delivery. It was $5,300. I've also noticed that the pediatrician always has lots of openings.

Economically speaking that may be true. The effects of nuclear radiation on children are devastating and is something I hope to never experience.

Who ends up benefiting from the year they were born is going to depend on when the war begins and when the nuclear weapons are launched.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... 111/6/1455

VULNERABILITIES IN CHILDREN
Children have a number of vulnerabilities that place them at greater risk of harm after radiation exposure. Because they have a relatively greater minute ventilation compared with adults, children are likely to have greater exposure to radioactive gases (eg, those emitted from a nuclear power plant disaster). Nuclear fallout quickly settles to the ground, resulting in a higher concentration of radioactive material in the space where children most commonly live and breathe. Studies of airborne pollutants are needed to test the long-held belief that the short stature of children brings them into greater contact than adults with fallout as it settles to earth. Radioactive iodine is transmitted to human breast milk, contaminating this valuable source of nutrition to infants. Cow milk, a staple in the diet of most children, can also be quickly contaminated if radioactive material settles onto grazing areas.

In utero exposure to radiation also has important clinical effects, depending on the dose and form of the radiation; transmission of radionuclides across the placenta may occur, depending on the agent. After exposures to external radiation, fetal doses of 0.60 Sv (60 rem) have produced small head size and mental retardation (in Japanese atomic bomb survivors), when exposures occurred between 8 and 25 weeks of gestational age.2 A dose-response effect was found in the occurrence of small head size without mental retardation, which occurred in fetuses exposed to ≥0.2 Sv (≥20 rem) between weeks 4 and 17 of gestation.

Radiation-induced cancers occur more often in children than in adults exposed to the same dose. Finally, children also have mental health vulnerabilities after any type of disaster, with a greater risk of long-term behavioral disturbances.

Wouldn't damaged nuclear power plants kill off most of the people in the US?

[Cool Breeze]

With the economy imploding, the West will soon be like the East: older men of means marrying women in their early twenties (or even late teens).

This actually would be a good thing, but interestingly enough, it doesn't shake out empirically. I know because I theorized the same thing. It's far more likely for the women to become onlyfans types, semi pros, or pros outright. Sad to say but I can tell you that most of the guys in Greece thought the same thing and it turned out that it just got worse.

That's what happens when you don't have strong families, fathers, and control of societies by wise men.

[tim]

Wouldn't damaged nuclear power plants kill off most of the people in the US?

If the U.S. was hit by nuclear weapons I am sure the damaged nuclear reactors would be a problem. I don't know what if any safeguards there are should something like that happen. Probably none, as is the nature of the cycle. Would it be as bad as Chernobyl was? I don't know.

There are other problems that I haven't gave much thought. Level 4 biosafety labs house the most dangerous viruses known to man. These labs are all over the world and the U.S. has 9 of them. Ebola, Smallpox, and who knows what else are in these labs. Should nuclear war either damage these labs or cause forced evacuations from radiation would they get out? It would make the SARS-COV2 pandemic seem like allergy season.

A large part of the U.S. experiences winter for months at a time to the point where without utilities the homes will be unlivable. Most don't even have fireplaces that could be used when the gas company goes down. Many of these homes rely on an above ground water treatment city ran facility for their drinking water. The homes on city sewer will experience sewage backing up from the sewer line through their toilets.

I am sure there are many others problems that nobody will foresee but some will experience.

[Navigator]

While many think WW3 will include a nuclear holocaust, I do not. Here is what I wrote about it in the book "How to Prepare for the Coming Storms":

Most people think that a global war would mean the immediate and widespread use of nuclear weapons: the doomsday scenario of everyone firing all their missiles at roughly the same time. Fortunately, almost everyone, especially the leadership of major powers, understand that the widespread use of nuclear weapons would mean that EVERYBODY will die, and all territory, including the homeland, would be radioactive. This is the primary reason why they haven’t been used. The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction means that both sides will show a large measure of restraint.

In World War II, the Germans had nerve gas. Allied gas masks offered only limited protection against this. The Germans could have put nerve gas canisters on submarines, had them surface at night to the west of Great Britain in the Irish sea, then unleashed clouds of atomized nerve agent across the island. The results would have been horrific. In fact, early in World War II, by far the greatest fear concerned the use of gas against the civilian population. So why didn’t the Germans do this?

The answer is because they feared that the Allies would do the exact same thing to them as a result. So, if even a maniacal nut job like Hitler was dissuaded from using a weapon due to the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (granted, his personal experience in WWI helped here), leaders today will be mostly dissuaded from doing the same thing.

This isn’t to say that nuclear weapons won’t be used. They will just be used in ways that the opposing sides will view as justified and effective. This will include using them at sea (like against aircraft carrier task forces or nuclear armed submarines), and against areas that are both sparsely populated or isolated and have important military targets (like Guam or ICBM complexes in Montana/Wyoming/North Dakota).


ALSO, while I don't see them being used on population centers in WW3, I do believe that they will eventually be used. This is because I believe that WW3, like WW1, will see the destruction of the "established order" and allow for the rise of truly scary people, ala Hitler, Stalin, Mao. These new leaders, who, without WW3 would have no chance at obtaining power, will use nuclear weapons in a WW4.

[Tom Mazanec]

When will WW4 happen? A couple decades after WW3, like the WW1-WW2 gap? A lifetime after WW3, like the WW2-WW3 gap?