Jump to content

Ergo Storm

Members
  • Posts

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Ergo Storm's Achievements

331

Reputation

  1. I hate the sight of him, but my objection to him is not that he is pro-vaccine. The very terms 'pro-vaccine' and 'anti-vaccine' are mendacious in my view. What matters is what works. I don't object to vaccines on principle as I don't see that as a sane position. If vaccines used with care help to prevent and suppress disease, it can only be a social good. If a particular vaccine has not been exhaustively trialed, then it should be treated with caution and only administered to individuals who have freely consented having been apprised of the risks. No-one should ever be pressured to take a vaccine, or any medicine. Other than in very exceptional circumstances - i.e. an actual plague in which bodies are piling up in the streets - treatment should always be predicated on the informed consent of the individual. This is not a 'pro-vaccine' or 'anti-vaccine' position, it's just sane.
  2. I know it's not the same person. Sorry you don't have a sense of humour.
  3. He's certainly putting himself about a bit... https://www.weforum.org/people/david-icke/
  4. In reality, people aren't dropping dead en masse, though. Really, the suggestion that they are is the flip side of the hysteria from those who supported repressive restrictions during the Covid-19 hysteria. There's no difference in principle between saying, 'Covid-19 will kill us all unless we all take this [pointless vaccine] and wear face masks' and 'The vaccine will kill you all and the population will shrink by 75% within the next two years'. People have been coming on here and making the latter specific claim for the last four years, telling us it will happen [next week/next month/in six months/in a year/in two years'. In two years we'll all be dead! It's an ego thing. Like a man with a sandwich board saying, The End of the World Is Nigh! Of course, over a long enough time span something like this could well happen. If you'd told me in January 2020 that within a few months 99% of the population would constantly be wearing face masks and obediently keeping themselves under house arrest because the Telescreen told them to, and that there would be no reasoning with such people, I would have thought you mad.
  5. What is the scope of this depopulation though? People on here have been saying for 3/4 years now that we are about to see a shrinking of the UK population down to 20 million or whatever, and personally I would love for that to happen - it would be paradise - but it never happened. I don't think depopulation in that sense is their agenda. There definitely is an agenda, but I think the vaccine is essentially harmless. The purpose of the vaccine is that it is a placebo for mass social control. Everything about our lives - the media we watch, jobs, politics, the food we consume - revolves around mass control. Some of it, such as food and media, physically and chemically alter us to induce compliance and stupefaction. But they don't want to kill us because without us they have nothing to control and profit from. They need us because land itself does not give them their wealth and capital. They need our labour - and that will always be the case, regardless of technological advances. This is why mass immigration arose. Unskilled labour could be replaced in the main with technology, leaving most of us with leisure time and enjoyable skilled occupations, and the unskilled who can't be trained could still lead fulfilling lives. But that would require more of a socialistic mentality - i.e. a system that works in the interests of everyone, not just the wealthy and rich. In their deeper dreams, they may wish they could replace us with predictable robots that can carry out labour and consume but without the unpredictable elements of humanity.
  6. Your opening words are ridiculous - you're inventing a problem using extreme language, then demanding a solution from me within narrow parameters that you define. I've forgotten for the moment the name for that argumentative fallacy. The simple fact is that a country can adapt perfectly fine to having a reducing/shrinking population - if it wants to. We don't need your solution of mass immigration. The debt can be written off, the country can default. The country could also change its fiscal arrangements, move off the dollar and so on. The country could invest in vocational training, technology and infrastructure that reduces reliance on low-skilled work. Mass immigration is imposed only because mass immigration serves an agenda - the agenda you're peddling on here. "Increased technology" - you've now tacked on another solution, which I mentioned in one of the posts you're replying to, whereas in your earlier posts you told us that population growth is the only solution. Without wishing to be too personal, you admit you live in Central America, and I'm going to assume you are a boomer - your perspective is typical of your generation, as it serves your interests. Mass immigration helped built the ease and prosperity you enjoyed. That's not to say your life was easy, but you've definitely had it easier than those who followed you. That success could have been built differently, on more solid foundations. It would have been slower with more hardship, but it would also have given us all a future. Instead, the war generation and boomers adopted a social and economic model that relies on perpetual growth, which cannot be sustained, and which the political elite are now locked into. It will require radical new leadership along the lines of a 'British Hitler' to break out of it within the existing capitalist system, but the point is that there are lots of ways we can live happy and contented lives without importing a fecund replacement population and destroying social cohesion in the process. It's just greedy.
  7. These are all policy choices, not laws of nature. Economics is not a science.
  8. Or we could try the other solution - get along with less people, invest in technology to automate some tasks, etc. and so on.
  9. No you don't. That's just your assumption.
  10. But no country needs population growth. Populations can shrink and a country can survive and prosper. The predicate is a sign of an agenda.
  11. Is it true, though? I've always been sceptical. I have not seen any convincing evidence he was guilty of anything more than perhaps being a bit inappropriate with older teenagers and young women. It's good to come across one of his victims at last. Perhaps you could elaborate and tell us exactly what he got up to and how you fit in the picture?
  12. That doesn't worry me too much. For what it's worth, I was a serious Orthodox Marxist at about the same age - younger actually - and some of what I believed would make today's 'Woke' people look moderate by comparison. When you're young and politically-engaged, you do believe in daft things. Conversely, I became an ethno-nationalist before it was fashionable. I have always been 'ahead of the curve' on things. It is plausible that Hitchens, likewise, sensed that there was something wrong in his Trotskyism and gradually reformed himself into a cultural conservative. People grow up. Anyway, I also agree with Hitchens that Britain should remain neutral in the matter of Russia and Ukraine. 'Kremlinist' or not, he is right about that - he is right about a great many things. There is one fact about him that has always given me slight reservations: during different periods as an overseas correspondent for Fleet Street, he was based in Moscow and Washington, D.C. My American geography is hazy, but I assume that while assigned to Washington, D.C., his suburban home in northern Virginia would not have been too distant from Langley. He does come across to me as somebody who has been trained in propaganda somewhere. Maybe the training is just from organic experience gained over the years, but I can't rule out that he may be a deep cover agent of some sort. I read his columns religiously every week, but not for the political comment. Mr Hitchens is a very good social and literary essayist, a sort of late 20th. century Orwell, and I always enjoy his pieces. The reason I don't take much notice of his political commentary is that he is plainly a conservative gatekeeper. It's so obvious that anybody who doesn't see it should get their eyes tested. Even if he is not an agent, his gatekeeping excludes him from serious consideration. He is also halachically Jewish, though he was brought up as an Anglican. I do think ethnicity affects how people see the world. In his case, I think his Jewishness combined with his determination to maintain a mainstream Fleet Street career have placed limitations on what he will and will not say.
  13. Agree, but also it seems invariably in these cases the black suspect was not victimised by police officers, in fact was up to no good. This is ignored because the media sense a story and accept a narrative based on twisted facts, so as to stoke up a headline-grabbing, agenda-riven witchhunt in which they can vilify the police and individual officers at will. What must be remembered in all this is that the criminal justice system in the United States is highly politicised and media-driven, and there is no sub judice protection following arrest of a suspect. I know nothing about this particular case and don't care to learn more, but I do feel sorry for the officers as they may well be entirely innocent yet find themselves before the courts with no prospect of a fair trial. While I agree with your comments about racial separation, that doesn't stop me having sympathy for people of all races on the receiving end of legal injustice: in this case, police officers who are black and may just have been doing their duty and had the misfortune of a suspect dying.
×
×
  • Create New...