On the now familiar theme of things being relentlessly shit, is there a worse first world country to live in than South Korea? There is nothing about it, its culture, or its people that ever comes across as anything other than absolutely dreadful.
On the now familiar theme of things being relentlessly shit, is there a worse first world country to live in than South Korea? There is nothing about it, its culture, or its people that ever comes across as anything other than absolutely dreadful.
Preach. Capitalism without having experienced 200 years of liberal awakening first. The absolute pits.
Not sure how Japan compares.
I mentioned this a while back. It's true across the entirety of the first world, but Korea, Japan and Italy are particularly fucked. The collapse in population over the next 100 years is going to be insane.Originally Posted by niko_cee
This is also part of the reason why many are increasing immigration so much. The alternative is tax being set at 80% as the native kids work 17 jobs each to try to pay all of our pensions.
Not favourably.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ected-by-young
I really feel like sorting housing and childcare costs would go a huge way to fixing a lot of the issues the western world faces but god forbid shareholders/landlords might have to see lesser returns on their investments/parasitic activities.
It would solve some of it. Particularly the people that just run out of time to have kids because they don't manage to get themselves into a financially viable situation in time, but it runs deeper than that.
Feminism and Birth Control are the main driver.
And the decline of Christianity, which is a tough one for we secular legends, as it makes us feel good and smug not to worship God, but the historical track record of godless civilisations is, let us say, very poor.
The declining birth rates along with mental health epidemics and obesity reflect a deeper, often overlooked cultural crisis. Whilst factors like housing, childcare costs, feminism, etc play a role, there's more profound issues here.
Capitalism exerts the toxic pressures on individuals. Offer freedom to a human and it'll naturally be inclined towards reproduction and healthy choices but true freedom is proving more and more elusive. The insecurities and inequalities we've championed prevent individuals from making choices that align with their natural inclinations.
Feminism and birth control are the plasters addressing symptoms rather than root causes. They empower the already powerless. Even housing and childcare costs are manifestations of the fundamental problems stemming from bowing to profit over people.
The ultimate solution lies in embracing Islam and submitting to the will of Allah, the Almighty.
Edit: Ah shit, Jimmy beat me to it.
I was with you right up to the conclusion.
If we're to embrace a religion, make it one of the cool ones. Norse gods ideally.
Saying that, the birthrates do sugest a Muslim majority is a possibility within out lifetimes (baring WW3 or Bovid27 taking us all out), so you may well get your wish. Salaams.
I think we need to make a distinction between capitalism, which is the natural order of things and has been going on since cavemen were trading skins, and the sort of Jeff Bezos corporate rape under which we are currently living.
I remember reading something about buying housing in Japan and how you pay off your mortgage for 40 years and then your house is worth less than you paid for it and you die in the forest having been abandoned by your children, be they real or imagined, or something.
Here we go
Virtually all societal problems are directly attributable to the absolutely insane inequality between the 1% and everyone else.
"Sorting housing" is the kind of stuff everyone agrees with, but no one has a single clue about how to actually do.
Yeah, the below is interesting viewing on this. Bat shit mental country.
I remember reading something about buying housing in Japan and how you pay off your mortgage for 40 years and then your house is worth less than you paid for it and you die in the forest having been abandoned by your children, be they real or imagined, or something.
Here we go
Surely we do, it's just that no government wants to be the one in charge when it is and everyone who already owns houses sees the value of theirs plummet as the supply ramps up.
It's incredible to me that people buy the line that we don't know how, we've been building houses as a civilisation for what, hundreds of thousands of years?
It would be very, very easy to sort. Make some greenfield land available. Cut through the bullshit requirements (having to provide parks, green space, etc. That can follow), planning permission needs to stop being reliant on NIMBY neighbours not objecting.
Basically, just let them build. There's far too many (I suspect deliberate) hurdles to jump at the moment.
Yeah, people built their own house next to their farm.
Housing is expensive not because of the building, but because we all want to live in the same place. I can get a dirt cheap house two towns over, but I rather kill myself than live there. How many houses (and where) do you think need to be built in London before prices decrease?
It's funny how every single person claims to support affordable housing, which apparently is piss easy to provide, yet no one does it because it would be unpopular. A bit of a contradictory argument, isn't it? So either people actually want housing to be expensive even though they say otherwise, or providing affordable housing is not that easy.
It's popular with young people that usually don't vote. Old people, that own houses and definitely do vote, not so much.
US is a bit different in that there are vast tracts of space everywhere, none of that in England.
Have you ever been on a plane? There's fucking loads.
Doesn't matter. No one wants to live in the middle of nowhere.
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news...-reveals-81951The NHF said the results show a strong consensus among people of all ages, political affiliations and across all parts of the country, over a need to build social housing above other types of homes.
People over 50, the demographic most likely to vote, were most in favour of prioritising social housing.
I am all for getting rid of all kinds of regulations and letting people build as much as they want wherever they want, btw. I just don't think that it will decrease prices by as much or as quickly as people think.
Unless said social housing is going to be near them.
Then it's imfimity letters to the local MP "there's not enough doctors!", "The schools are full!", "the roads will be murder!" NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY.
They want it, just far, far away.
We would be better served by kicking a few million people out and putting the resources into re-building much of our existing shit housing stock.
You keep banging that drum but even the posts on this page have proven what a suicidal idea that would be. Unless of course all those few million are aged 65+, then I'm on board.
I will sign up as a supporter of the Great Deportation if I can first see a detailed operational plan on how it's going to happen, who gets deported and the logistics and comms plan involved. Spill the beans.
Lewis would kick anyone out who could be outside for 90 minutes without getting sunburnt. Afterwhich, when it was still shit, He’d turn his attention to his own shadow which is a bit dark for his liking.
It's not a simple as building more housing stock. It's the associated infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads, etc, which is also needed.
Just building more houses puts additional strain on an already struggling system.
Planning guidance also looks to protect existing office and retail stock in many areas, so change of use can be difficult with existing or brownfield sites.
Which posts on this page? Why is an ever increasing population necessary or even desirable? Aren't we on the verge of an AI/automation revolution?
If you are talking about the idea that mass immigration is needed to pay for pensions, according to the 2021 census the only (heavily generalised) ethnic groups that provide a net financial contribution to the Exchequer are 'white' (White British, Europeans, even gypos who don't pay any tax) and 'Asian'. The latter are borderline, which, based on all of the other available data, is likely to be contributing Chinese and Indians covering for Pakistanis and Bengalis being a massive drain. 'Ethnic Minorities' as a whole represent a net drain, and 'Black' is so far skewed that, on average, every black person in the United Kingdom requires that their existence be subsidised by the contributions of one and a half white people.
Obviously you knew that; but if we can therefore state that mass immigration has been an overall drain on the national finances, and that forty per cent of all immigrants arrived in the last ten years (and most of them and their descendants over the last twenty), the pension situation is actually getting worse isn't it?
I provided an outline before, but you pointed out that the Church of England and Doreen Lawrence would object, so I've resigned myself to paying for the country to kill itself.
Yeah, at some point you'd be building new towns to go with it. As for the space Britain has, I always get the impression every field in this country has an owner. Either it's farming land or it's some cunt thinking about eventually putting it to farming use.
Lewie, where are these census figures that show that?
You've just said kick them out. Let's say that Doreen pipes down and the ghost of Rosa Parks also waves it through. What does day one of Operation Dropkick look like? Are we sending them letters offering them incentives to leave? Are the army going in dragging them out of their homes and loading them into train carriages? Have we locked Michael Mansfield in a cupboard before starting? There are so many permutations. I'd actually love to see a wargame on it.
I’m with Jimmy come on Lewis what is the final solution?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...y-ethnic-group
I said most could be induced to leave before any physical removal was necessary (although criminals and illegals would be rounded up and punted on Day One). To use one example, seventy per cent of Somalians live in social housing, and over ninety per cent of them arrived in this country post-1991. If you simply declared that only people born here had an automatic right to remain, which isn't in itself unreasonable, and then made their presence here further conditional on being resident here for twenty-five years (say) and/or earning enough to represent a net benefit to the Exchequer, then the vast majority of Somalians would instantly lose their right to be here living off the taxpayer, and most of the rest of them would leave as well because their Bristol-born twelve year old isn't paying the rent.
Simple economic measures - taxing remittances, increasing salary thresholds - would deal with most of the problems before you have to start hassling anyone on cultural grounds (i.e. dealing with face coverings, increased secularisation, not recognising cousin marriages, banning hooky religious meat even if it annoyed the Chosen People).
Woah, woah, woah, how do we know these negative outcomes are not merely a reflection of the systemic discrimination these Blacks and Somalians face in this society?
Black people are tired. Tired from the stress of having to clean the windowsill mould in a heavily-subsidised zone two flat.
I was sceptical of almost every assertion stated as fact here, but having been provided the numbers (and with a little bit of manipulation of them in Excel, see below) this is all absolutely right.
I would have assumed something along those lines before the racist data confirmed it, so why were you sceptical?
I would add though, when this great deportation starts are we also kicking Jaywick (ludicrous unemployment, double the national crime rate, but 96% white) into the sea?
I suppose because the stats are not often said in public. Why, for example, does Farage not have a tattoo of that shit on his forehead and why isn't Diane Abbott using it as a point to prove racism?
Gary Lineker would say that Marcus Rashford pays more tax than a white lorry driver, a million mongs would re-tweet it, and then we would realise why statistical averages are never discussed in any public context ever. Still, it would be an interesting contribution to the on-going debate around reparations for blacks.
As for Jaywick, English deadheads are our problem. People who have been here for barely a generation ought not to be.
Oops logged into stormfront again.
The main issue I'd take with that data is that "black" doesn't mean anything. There is a big difference between black people from Africa with 2 parents, and black people from the Caribbean that often have one parent, for example.
For example, in higher education:
Now, I don't know what's behind that. I suspect single parent households will be part of it. Less common in African and Asian homes. More common in Caribbean ones (and in Jaywick). And with that, we're right back to this being a symptom of a society in decline. It's simplistic to just point at skin colour.
Black single parents:
It also assumes blame. For example:
38 year old Spikey. Mixed race mum (half Caribbean black), raised in a single parent home. Why? White British alcoholic dad. The data simply captures that as "black mixed single parent".
Last edited by Spikey M; 29-02-2024 at 07:18 AM.
The problem is numbers can't provide context. For example, black people didn't choose to live in mould-infested high rises. They were hamstrung as soon as they arrived. Put me, a white person, in their environment and I'm probably well in the minus too. We pigeon-holed immigrants in their own class, a rung below working class, which is all well and good but we can't reap the rewards for a few decades then suddenly decide we don't want them as soon as the bloom is off the rose.I was sceptical of almost every assertion stated as fact here, but having been provided the numbers (and with a little bit of manipulation of them in Excel, see below) this is all absolutely right.
EDIT: Oh, just seen Spikey's context. There we go.
Some of the context. This stuff will run deep. For example, people arriving from war zones. Can they be expected to immediately become functioning members of society? Are we to discount the years, of no blacks, no dogs, no Irishmen? "Fuck that, you're equal now, catch up ffs".
There will be loads of shit factoring in that we haven't even began to consider.
Then there's the issue of our biggest net-drain. The Super Rich, buying everything, driving up prices, suppressing wages and hiding their cash however they can to avoid paying tax.
But no. No, it's the blacks that are wrong.
To be clear, I’m not for one minute suggesting I agree with Lewis’ approach - it’s lunacy. I don’t even believe Shamima Begum shouldn’t be allowed back. If you have British citizenship you have every right to be here, no matter what you do or don’t do and it shouldn’t ever be revoked, it’s as simple as that.
And of course there are underlying reasons why those numbers are the way they are and problems with them inherently. The categories are far too broad for example, but they’ve obviously done that deliberately.
In happier news Millennials set to become ‘richest generation in history’
Bad luck if you were born after 1994 I guess, losers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
