The WEF King ascends to the British throne

[GURPS]

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, humanity, and in particular, western civilization, has lost an absolute giant. She was a remarkable person from a remarkable era. She will be missed.

Her successor, on the other hand, can best be understood as the WEF (World Economic Forum) king. King Charles is truly a king for our times, in the worst possible way imaginable. He is a perfect representation of the western ruling class and its pernicious agenda.

Charles, to put it bluntly, is an anti-human reprobate, who has lived a life of disgrace, hypocrisy, and corruption. But his lifestyle is the least of the issues at hand. Charles is a king who has embraced and promoted the most destructive causes of our times.

Most notably, Charles is both a climate catastrophist and an advocate for the depopulation agenda. Last year, he demanded a “war-like footing,” in calling for the sabotage of reliable energy resources to tackle the so-called climate crisis. Charles’s initiatives, and his promotion of the destructive Paris Climate Accords and the U.N.’s Climate Change Conference objectives, has helped position the U.K. on the precipice of energy disaster.





The newly minted king is also an avowed proponent of depopulation, having on multiple occasions called for population control of broader civilization.

https://twitter.com/HegKong/status/1545101570282557440

The WEF King ascends to the British throne

Charles is a king for our times, in the worst way imaginable.

dossier.substack.com

 

[Hijinx]

King Charles is not good for Britain.
Queen Elizabeth tried herd to keep him from being King, but she just couldn't outlive him.

 

[vraiblonde]

The King who really wants to be a tampon.

Rule Brittania!

 

[Monello]

Given the worlds' finite amount of resources, depopulation or population control isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just in my lifetime, the US population has nearly doubled(189M to 331M). Interesting thing is that people that aren't able to feed themselves on a regular basis are the populations having all the kids.

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Clem72]

Interesting thing is that people that aren't able to feed themselves on a regular basis are the populations having all the kids.

Only in total numbers, because farmers are so few. Or are you going to tell me you know a farming family personally that has less than, lets say, 4 kids? Because I know MANY (my cousins, my wife's entire extended family, local farmers, Amish/Mennonites) and they all have LOTS of kids. The average for "city folk" (I.E. the people that don't produce the food) is much lower than rural folks. But you don't have to take my word for it, here's a perdy picture.

 

[Kyle]

Only in total numbers, because farmers are so few. Or are you going to tell me you know a farming family personally that has less than, lets say, 4 kids? Because I know MANY (my cousins, my wife's entire extended family, local farmers, Amish/Mennonites) and they all have LOTS of kids. The average for "city folk" (I.E. the people that don't produce the food) is much lower than rural folks. But you don't have to take my word for it, here's a perdy picture.

In light of recent developments, does that graph account for ALL Birthing People, including but not limited to Men, Trans or Multi-Species persons?

 

[Sneakers]

In light of recent developments, does that graph account for ALL Birthing People, including but not limited to Men, Trans or Multi-Species persons?

It looks it applies to American/US populations. It would be very diferent if the World was included. I agree with what Monello said above, but not just limited to the US.

 

[Kyle]

 

[SamSpade]

Only in total numbers, because farmers are so few. Or are you going to tell me you know a farming family personally that has less than, lets say, 4 kids? Because I know MANY (my cousins, my wife's entire extended family, local farmers, Amish/Mennonites) and they all have LOTS of kids. The average for "city folk" (I.E. the people that don't produce the food) is much lower than rural folks. But you don't have to take my word for it, here's a perdy picture.

I don't think he's referring to families, but whole nation populations. Nations that are exploding in population are also nations barely able to feed themselves. The poorest nations are having the most children.

 

[Clem72]

I don't think he's referring to families, but whole nation populations. Nations that are exploding in population are also nations barely able to feed themselves. The poorest nations are having the most children.

See I took it as specifically aimed at the US. He literally prefaced it by saying that during his lifetime the US population has doubled.

Generally arguments/statements/etc. build upon each other to complete a thought. C follows from B which followed from A. See if you follow my logic.

1) General statement about the worth of a political/socioeconomic position.
2) Specific statement relating that position to a particular population.
3) General statement about the cause of the original position applied to sub-populations.

I positid that the sub-population in #3 was meant to apply to the group identified in #2 (the ONLY group specifically identified), where you're claiming it makes more sense that statement #3 was in relation only to #1 and that #2 was completely extraneous information not relevant to making the point of #3.

So I must conclude that while I believed Monello to have made an incorrect statement, you believe him incapable of having made a coherent statement in the first place.

 

[Hijinx]

I don't think he's referring to families, but whole nation populations. Nations that are exploding in population are also nations barely able to feed themselves. The poorest nations are having the most children.

They can't afford expensive hobbies so they have sex.

 

[spr1975wshs]

Perhaps Chuckie III will give Parliament a good excuse to do away with the Monarchy?

 

[BOP]

Given the worlds' finite amount of resources, depopulation or population control isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just in my lifetime, the US population has nearly doubled(189M to 331M). Interesting thing is that people that aren't able to feed themselves on a regular basis are the populations having all the kids.

 

[SamSpade]

So I must conclude that while I believed Monello to have made an incorrect statement, you believe him incapable of having made a coherent statement in the first place.

Not at all. I just didn't think he was building a case in two sentences. Just making observations.
Making some kind of blanket statement about U.S. farmers doesn't make ANY sense in his statement.
It makes more sense to observe them as two completely separate and therefore, logical, remarks.

The world population IS zooming out of control and while the United States population has doubled in MY lifetime, the rest of the world has nearly quadrupled, and the nations growing the fastest are in fact, the poorest. In contrast most of the world's developed nations are either SHRINKING or have stagnant growth. This is true in Europe,Japan and ESPECIALLY Eastern Europe. Ironically, OUR growth would be mostly stagnant were it not for immigration.

The nations that can LEAST afford to keep growing are the poorest ones.

 

[gemma_rae]

They can't afford expensive hobbies so they have sex spread disease.

Fixed it a little there Jinx.

 

[gemma_rae]

^That's where all the food went.^

 

[Kyle]

 

[BOP]

View attachment 166065

If he outlives Joe, it'll be a miracle.

 

[Merlin99]

King Charles is not good for Britain.
Queen Elizabeth tried herd to keep him from being King, but she just couldn't outlive him.

He 75 years old, I doubt he’s got much gas in the tank to keep going.