Tag Archives: population

Climate, Crime, Economics, Environment, Governance, Religion

Sus… Stain

Leave a comment
Old and new technologies stand in contrast as a farm windmill is surrounded by wind turbines.

“Sustainability” is the great leftist byword in the summer of 2023.  Democrats and other Communists are determined to force Americans to give up much of what we have invented and worked for, in order to transform our economy and society to states of “sustainability.”  This also means that the work, inventiveness, science and engineering of the most “successful” peoples (in terms of wealth and standards of living) may have to be thrown away due to the color of their skin or the dominant religion(s) in their traditions.

White-skinned people, especially Christians and Jews, must renounce their successes and civic structures because they were “stolen” over the course of history, whether 200, 500 or 1,000 years ago and even more.  Nothing those groups ever accomplished can remain in their possession.  To do so would be “unsustainable.”  As would be most of their “racist” and “supremacist” ideas… things like private property, Constitutional limits on government, and free speech, religious freedom and equal application of the laws.

Sustainability appears to require conformity.  That is, the jumbled non-regulation of independent liberty is “unsustainable” in the views of leftists; conformity is more permanent and “sustainable.”  First, everyone has to think the same thoughts, of course.  Religious thoughts don’t conform.

The whole world, now, must conform to “sustainability” as if some activities – and politics – are sustainable and some not.  America is not sustainable, we’re told, because we use too much clean water, too much electricity, too much oil and natural gas and way, way too much coal… as in, any.  China, on the other hand, is the model of conformity and therefore sustainability.  They use millions of tons of coal to bring modern electrification to their industries and to people who would otherwise be oppressed by white people.  Plans to begin figuring out how to reduce coal-fired electricity 20 or 30 years from now in China, are examples of excellence in sustainability; actually reducing coal-fired electricity, today and for the past 30 years or so, in the United States, are examples of failure to conform to the planet-saving zero-carbon-emissions model.  Whose “model” is that, actually?

Mostly, it seems to be a political model rather than a scientific one, and one that even ignorant children and older persons can become agitated about.  All that are needed are a few chemical terms and scientific-sounding phrases and a whole political movement can be created and, better, sustained.  The zero-carbon-emissions model of “sustainability” is, itself, sustainable!  How cool is that?  Despite the fact of lots of private-jet travel and ritzy accommodations, (high-carbon emissions activities, all) sustaining the zero-carbon political movement is vastly more important and sustainable than all other methods of improving living standards and sustainable economies across the developing world as both it and the developed world invent ways to operate and grow economies and social well-being.  Suddenly the only “sustainable” model for humans appears to be allowing for far, far FEWER humans, altogether.  Humans are not sustainable.

To maintain and sustain the numerous articles of faith that underlie the carbon-free climate-control model, many untruths must be sustained as well.  One of these is that CO2 is causing global warming which would be, needless to say, unsustainable if true.  That premise is not provable but it certainly has its adherents.  The earth, the oceans, weather and plant-life have efficient means of removing carbon-dioxide (one of those important chemical terms) from the atmosphere.  Over geologic time there have existed both higher concentrations of CO2 and lower than we have right now.  During cold periods, ice periods, warm periods and very warm periods, the atmosphere has held more and less CO2.  Sometimes the CO2 increases before a warming period; sometimes it increases afterwards.  It is definitely an indicator of global changes, but the case for its being a cause of those changes is merely sophisticated speculation and, sadly, some of even that is disingenuous.                                                                                                    [See: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/07/20/a-home-on-the-beach/]

Given its 3 to 4 Billion-year age, the Earth-Moon binary system has proven highly sustainable.  Even giant collisions involving the formation of the moon couldn’t knock the system off track.  Additional materials, including comets with trillions of tons of water, added to the Earth while the Moon sort-of protected the new planet from other impacts and collisions, resulting in a remarkably stable binary planet system in a remarkably stable Solar System orbiting a remarkably stable star.  But, “stable” doesn’t mean “static.”  Our Sun is a nuclear engine, constantly accumulating Hydrogen and constantly fusing it into Helium, while, bit-by-bit, accumulating heavier elements including carbon and metals as the deep inner core of the Sun ages and “dies.”  Sometimes the Sun puts out more energy, sometimes less.  Eventually, some billions of years into the future, the Sun will become UNSUSTAINABLE and blow itself to bits like every star eventually will.  Not even the entire Democrat Party and its Antifa troopers will be able to prevent it.  OMG!

There should emerge a certain perspective on the likelihood that about 7/10ths of a billion tons of humans, including the few hundred thousand pounds of bureaucrats and committed Communists, can change the tax system enough to significantly modify the future of the Earth.  Oh, they might force people to breath less, procreate less and mow their lawns less… they might even get more of them to eat bugs instead of beef (the ones with “Love is Love” signs), but they won’t – and can’t – shift the processes of Earth-sustainability in any significant way.  They do, however, manage to change the meanings of perfectly good words… words like “freedom,” “rights” and “racism,” for examples… along with “climate,” “family” and “education.”  Oh, yes: “peaceful,” too.

It used to be that hydro-power was “green” and sustainable, but no longer.  Now it’s only “solar” and “wind” power that’s green enough.  Collateral damage to animals, birds and humans along the way, is easily ignored for the “greater good.”  That sounds wicked nice: “greater good.”   Who wouldn’t sacrifice a few dozen whales or 62 million pre-born babies for the “greater good?”  Put another way, “The end justifies the means.” 

The other day, speaking at Coppin State University in Baltimore, Vice-President of the United States of America, Kamala Harris, a brilliant economist and historian, she, stated, “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.” (Emphasis added)

The official White House transcript shows Harris misspoke. She had intended to say “reduce pollution,” not “reduce population.” The transcript provides this correction in brackets alongside the original wording, which is crossed out.  This is a process in which  the Biden White House is well-practiced: modifying official statements.  Back in 2020, while Joe Biden was “campaigning” from his basement, he stated that the Democrat Party had the most sophisticated voter-fraud operation ever.  Of course, we were told that what he meant to say was “voter-fraud prevention,” but he needed modification.  Recognizing how frequently Mr. Biden says the opposite of what he has been told to say, Prudence is not so sure that he hadn’t told the truth the first time he described the DNC’s voter-fraud operation.  This is bolstered by the evidence of a very sophisticated voter-fraud operation employed in the 2020 elections.

Ms. Harris may have heard about the sophisticated population-reduction efforts and intentions of forces like the World Economic Forum, Planned Parenthood, Bill Gates and his ilk, and others, and inadvertently let slip a truth bomb.  “Population / Pollution…” they are mildly alliterative, as is she, as is “Planned Parenthood.”  Maybe she hadn’t proof-read or practiced her talk.  The more one learns about mRNA shots pushed so diligently around the world, the words, “reduce population” may very well have been heard among the circles in which she unravels… err, travels… travels, I meant to say.  The World would be a great place to live in if it weren’t for all the relatively useless people over-populating it, now.  We are simply unsustainable.

The global Communist philosophy… ideology, is based on the end justifying the means, even if the means include the deaths of a hundred-Million people, or so.  They had to go for the greater good because they did not think or believe correctly.

Humans have done and still do many foolish, if not stupid things.  We dirty our own homes, neighborhoods, cities and lands, air and waters.  We could avoid these errors and clean up what we’ve done and Prudence believes we will, in fact.  Economics has distorted our values but, we can change our thinking about what is most important.  Current economics is not sustainable – $32 Trillion in debt, indeed!  Operating industry, living, transporting, modernizing can all be done cleanly; those who do so should be rewarded economically.  Only then will we actually do something good for the environment.  Only then will things become “sustainable.”

Culture, Economics, Family

THE ANT AND THE OLD MAN

Leave a comment

Aesop’s Fables include a most telling description of the values of sacrifice and, in truth, of love.  In the little morality play the grasshopper is portrayed with a fiddle, which he has played all summer, eating such vegetation as he fancied whenever he was hungry.  The Ant, however, has been stocking his larder (his / her, it’s hard to tell) all during the summer – busy, busy,  busy, foregoing simple pleasures in order that the more vital pleasure of eating during the winter might be made certain. Very Prudent. Old Aesop, there, knew far more than he let on.

One could, if one had a tendency to draw parallels, observe that Socialism and Communism – grasshoppers or locusts, take your pick – and the emerging, barely United States of America, are less and less ant-like and more and more grasshopperish.  This is nowhere more starkly true than in the matters of marriage and children.

So, what came first?  The grasshopper or his / her, it’s hard to tell, thousands of eggs?  Did we “reason” our way away from religion first, or did we destroy family economics first?  And, by destroying economics, who are we serving?  Qui bono?   The result – or coincidence in the “minds” of ruling grasshoppers – is that fewer two-parent families are being formed, fewer children are being born and those who are allowed birth (pay no attention to the 62 Million Americans aborted in the past 50 years; nothing to see there… any longer) are less and less likely to be raised by two parents, and less by two parents married to each other.  Those who are born are also more likely to be only children or have no more than one sibling.

Those who marry are marrying later: late 20’s, early 30’s, with fewer high-fertility years ahead, having waited for more favorable economic circumstances before relinquishing one of their careers for child-rearing.

There are surely a whole lot of intercourse and other sex acts going on, but not for procreation purposes.  Children are, well, “too expensive.”

First and foremost, having little kids cuts into the fun two young, possibly sexy, career-advancing big kids want to have.  Little by little we have “advanced” adolescence into a third decade.  “Kids” are just getting out of 4, 5 or 6 years of college (not always confused with higher education) with loans to pay off and vacations to take.  What with medical science these days, there’s “plenty of time” to start a family when “we have time.”  We’ve been in school for 20 years and we want to “live” a little before we have kids of our own.  A grasshopper could not have said it better.

Wait, wait, wait, wait!  Didn’t Prudence just shift allegories there?  What have babies to do with storing food for the winter?

Well, winter can be a long time coming and once an old person… or couple, realizes that winter has found him, her or them, it’s too late to sacrifice for the future.  There is only one sacrifice, one expression of love that can prepare people for their eventual winter: children who love them.  It’s not food in the larder or cars in the driveway.  It’s not a paid-up mortgage or a substantial nest egg (bad choice of words, there: the nest is empty) or a time-share in a beautiful location.  And those are all nice things, marginally better than reaching one’s childless winter with minimal resources… but only marginally.

The fundamental truth that becomes starkly obvious at age 60 or 70 or older, with no children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren to care about you, is that no hired caretaker, no temp agency, no government program, can take the place of your progeny whom you have loved and who have loved you for 30, 40, 50 or 60 years.  Go ahead, try finding one.  Ask anyone near your age who lives alone and lonely, if the VNA nurse or home-health aide is “just like having a loving child caring how your doing?”

The grasshopper / locust (like a grasshopper, but meaner) “played” when he / she (hard to tell) was young, and failed to prepare for the future that was surely coming, when food no longer grew underfoot.  Like every grasshopper, our subject dies in the end, friendless, no doubt, but probably not childless, grasshopper-wise.  His children cannot and could not help him in the winter of his old age – same as having no children at all.  A childless winter can be bleak.

The phenomenon of too few children to even replace normal death rates in a population, means that said population will fairly quickly: 2 to 3 generations, 50 to 75 years – become too small to plot its own economic or cultural path to the future it desires.  Several populations or nationalities are fading, now.  Along with white North Americans, Japanese, Russian, Scandinavian and Northern European and U. K. populations are failing to replace themselves.  At the same time a variety of wars and crappy policies have yielded broad emigrations of non-white and non-Judeo-Christian refugees into historically “white” and Christian nations and cultures.  It is an historic “double-whammy.”

Despite the flood of anti-white, anti-Judeo-Christian calumny over the last 4 to 5 decades, most virulently over the past dozen years, increasing to abject destruction and politically supported hatred of whites and Asians, Jews and, now Christians, the overarching history of “white,” largely Jewish and Christian development and growth, is one of steady and imperfect progress: intellectual, scientific, experimental, exploratory, democratic and republican and, eventually, the basis for individual, not group freedoms.  Throughout there has always been a force – or set of forces – desirous of reigning in freedom, dominating it with monarchy and other tyrannies, and with wars.

There is no reason to expect that the dispersion of “white” progress along with the irrelevance of shrinking white populations, is going to lead to a new age of increased freedom, economic or otherwise, certainly not of religion, and certainly not in an individual sense.  The alternative to the ideas and ideals of America – to date the epitome of freedom and personal responsibility in that long flow of Judeo-Christian history – appears to be rigid, top-down group-identity governance on a global, not national, basis. 

There are only a few threads and patches left in that grand tapestry.  It frays daily.  Judeo-Christian history is also the epitome of self-destruction, commencing with the inculcation of new beliefs in the wrongness of everything “white,” Judeo-Christian and Euro-centric – everything Constitutional, in effect.  This new belief structure, hastened by destructive, socialist economics, convinces young, white “Westerners” to not bring more children into this world.

Those of us who have the good fortune of not having been aborted, face only a long, cold winter of increasing loneliness, for we have failed to lay up treasure for our futures, in the persons of children who love us and to whom our heritage might have been entrusted.