5 comments on “Operation Barbarossa 2: ‘Overpopulation’ and the Funding of World War III

  1. “Over-population is a western ego-centric phantasy. Western Comfort is afraid of having to share some of their excesses with the poor under-humans of so-called developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America – the slowly emerging Continents that have been raped for hundreds of years by precisely the same western colonialists which today claim over-population and wage war around the world in a new form of colonialism.”

    This is exactly right!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I want to make 2 comments on the article, not totally on the main theme.

    The first is about food production and distribution. [quote]”Over-population is a western egocentric fantasy” [unquote] That is an incorrect statement. Earth has a limited environment; limited space and human beings like other beings need not only food, but open, livable space to exist, not just survive. Already humans are crowding out other species uncaring as to how that affects the overall ecological balance. Now at 7.4 billions, imagine almost doubling that number. Think: most population exists in cities where little or no food can be grown. Doubling population means doubling the size of cities. Even if food could be grown and distributed fairly to achieve a 12 billion mark in population, that isn’t the whole story, is it. Already most of mankind exists in artificial environments entirely sustained by a tenuous technology also entirely dependent on availability of natural resources to maintain itself. Already man’s “footprint” upon the planet is considered to be the death-knell of its living environment. Try to imagine the resources needed to satisfy cities housing 12 billion individuals. Food alone: imagine the costs of transportation. Add costs of effluent disposal. Heating and lighting. Street maintenance and transportation. Education and health care. Policing, and let’s not forget with higher pressures, more crime, hence more prisons, more police, more para-military control; more surveillance and correspondingly less freedom. Oh, wait, that’s already happening. Double it? Why not, man is certifiably insane anyway, why change when we’ve almost accomplished our deepest desires, to totally destroy the planet and leave it as appealing as Mars.

    Imagine 12 billion people crammed against each other in the worst dystopia imaginable: the entire planet home to 100 refugee camps all run from a great bureaucratic central that operates the control drones. OK, the people have food, whether nutritious or not (and likely to be GMO’s) to eat. What about the rest of man’s requirements for a decent life? Open space, clean air, clean water, a modicum of freedom of movement to enjoy that life? Food isn’t the only issue. You see, that’s the problem with problem solvers: they suffer extensively from pigeon-hole thinking, or they have their faces so solidly stuck in their butts that they can’t see anything. They get on their band-wagon and ride blindly through the park, relying on the donkey to know enough to avoid serious obstacles. But of course there are no other obstacles than the “problem” they’re currently working at solving.

    Point? Just or fair distribution of food doesn’t have to equate a higher population; in fact it should mean a decreasing population density. With a lot more destruction and poisoning, earth may be able to feed 12 billions, but why bring that up since holistically approached, it’s an argument for the insane?

    As to war, Earthians have always been at war: has that meant lower populations? What wars do is destroy the younger generations that have the potential to bring about change. With each major battle (there is only one, perpetual war) the old guard is guaranteed to remain in power – and that’s exactly what it wants. Each battle means a dummied-down general population; the best minds blown up on battle fields and in bombed out neighbourhoods. At this point in time this shouldn’t even have to be re-stated.

    It has been said that every revolution carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It should also be said that every technological solution carries within itself the seeds of exponentially greater problems.

    Man’s civilization is dependent upon technology. Technology is totally dependent upon availability of cheap and abundant raw natural resources to feed itself. Therefore, technology is also entirely dependent upon problem solvers to maintain itself. Man’s civilization is based on problem solving and man’s greatest problem solving tool has always been war. Conclusion: man’s civilization is based on war. End that war and civilization as we know it, ends with it.

    So, as the father asks his son near the end of the movie, “Pleasantville” – what comes next? Makes me think of another story ending: The lady or the tiger? Life or destruction?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.