If the divorce laws in Germany are anything like the ones here then it's no wonder why the birth rate is in such a decline. Men won't take the risk of marrying, or having a child with a woman. It's too much of a risk, and so the birth rate drops as we get smart to them, and everyone suffers because of biased laws and feminism.

Quote from Tyrael

Link.

Why o why is this happening? I know why. First and foremost this is due to Feminist evil attempts to destroy the nuclear family. They do this with all kinds of anti-male biased regulations and laws, make marriage a bad deal for males, promote the myth that females and males are the same which is completely false etc.
It's also, because women in developed countries squander their prime years that they can produce the most healthiest children with the least complications, since they're studying in college, university. Women who postpone parenthood coupled with a life's focus on jobs also means few or no children at all. High expenses of raising children in urban areas is also a big factor.

Countries without sufficient children and people to support it are simply unsustainable.

First off, I'd like to start by saying that I love your posts, and then continue with my little diatribe. So... Excellent post!

What is most frightening about this is not the impact it will have on Germany, or Russia, or Japan, or Australia, or any other single nation, but rather the horrendous impact that this species self-extinction time bomb will have on the WORLD as a whole. Feminism is absolutely to blame, with the United Nations citing feminism as THE MOST EFFECTIVE FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL known to man. That is, this same pattern is repeated throughout the developed world, often in nations which can ill-afford the population decline.

The end result? Massive economic depressions worldwide with virtual collapses in all areas of social services from medicare to pensions and everything in between. Massive shortages of consumer products and food scarcity as the aged population becomes unable to contribute to the welfare of the nations.

The impetus for this self-destruction, is the deluded belief of course, that the sky is falling and that global warming, left unchecked, would destroy us all. The thought then, at a globalist UN level, is to dramatically reduce the number of human beings in an effort to stave off the effects of climate change. Interestingly though, the cataclysm that they are trying to prevent could well be replaced with a much speedier and much more painful end.

If indeed the human species is contributing to climate change, I have a couple of questions for those who are wise enough to think for themselves.

1.) While humans, influencing the environment at a small level in comparison to normally existing influences, could well trigger the global warming phenomenon in the first place, what makes you honestly believe that we could slow down or even stop the phenomenon once it's in place?

(Why I ask the question):
While a butterfly flapping its wings backwards might trigger chaos and the end of all things, it could flutter until it burst in a forwards direction and still not undue the damage! The same is true for us. We have cut down rainforests - the lungs of the earth, pumped pollutants into the atmosphere and shrank the size of the ice shields at the poles dramatically - granted.

What this does then, is set in motion a dominoe effect or positive feedback loop i.e. less ice reflecting the sun's rays, equals increased solar penetration, which equals less ice reflecting the sun's rays, which equals increased solar penetration - continue process infinitely as though looking through a set of mirrors.

Or, said another way, increased deforestation results in increased greenhouse gas accumulation, which results in decreased ozone, which results in increased solar penetration, which results in increased numbers of forest fires, which results in increased deforestation... - continue process infinitely as though looking through a set of mirrors.

Or, said another way, increased burning of fossil fuels triggers increased global warming, which triggers increased volcanic activity which triggers decreased ozone layer, which triggers increased volcanic activity... - continue process infinitely as though looking through a set of mirrors.

Oh, and while you're looking in the mirror, why not ask yourself question number 2?

2.)a.) What is the number one contributer to greenhouse gas emissions? And 2.) b.) what has been the number one contributer to the dramatic increase we have seen in these emissions, especially within the last 50 years?

Well, I'm glad you asked such an astute question! The number one contributer to greenhouse gas emissions is not factories, but rather automobiles! And what did feminism do to the number of automobiles on the road? It virtually doubled them! And what is the impact of that?

Furthermore, what is the impact of the increased consumption of a number of consumer products, whereby women effect the majority of purchase decisions, in terms of factory emissions? Why, once again, feminism would have contributed enormously to the release of these emissions, as an increase in consumer spending, especially on disposable products, has led to an increased release of factory smoke and an increased demand on resources like forestry.

So, to summarize, feminism, the cure for overpopulation and thus, the saviour of the environment is in fact: a.) neither, b.) both, or c.) worse than the disease the UN had hoped to cure, at once accelerating the disease and at the same time, creating social and economic havoc as depopulation ensues?

If you answered c.) you're smarter than you look and much smarter than the media hoped you would be

"If the pen is mightier than the sword, best keep it sharp."

So, let me get this straight... We are reducing population levels in an attempt to reduce the human contribution to global warming... But, through feminism, with both genders working and consuming, we have dramatically increased the release of emissions, at least in the short term, contributing a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions in a relatively short period of time - perhaps creating the global warming phenomenon in the first place, or at least putting its remedy well beyond our reach...

hmm.... Urethra!

End feminism now, and reduce emissions. Utilize our strengths of innovation, by refusing to allow quotas, but promoting merit instead. Develop cleaner alternatives, colonize space and expand beyond these limited horizons, or, follow the path of feminism and implode? Gee, that's a tough one.

:???:

"If the pen is mightier than the sword, best keep it sharp."

Quote from TheSharpenedPen

First off, I'd like to start by saying that I love your posts, and then continue with my little diatribe. So... Excellent post!

Thanks mate, you have good points there.
It may indeed be the case that feminism is also a tool of more obscure entities that use it in order to for example decrease the (world) population, create some kind of communist inspired society where children are not with their parents, but grow up mostly at government institutions such as child care centres, schools etc.

Quote from Tyrael

Thanks mate, you have good points there.
It may indeed be the case that feminism is also a tool of more obscure entities that use it in order to for example decrease the (world) population, create some kind of communist inspired society where children are not with their parents, but grow up mostly at government institutions such as child care centres, schools etc.

The communist society thing is right on the money. Have we not seen a decidely left-wing shift in virtually all governments and their policies right around the world? Even those who call themselves conservatives turn up with policies that are centrist at best.

In Canada, the last election almost cost the nation its children, with much of the debate focusing on a national childcare program, offering daycare for all children on the tax payer doll, and setting up new day-care centers coast to coast. Leaving the immense drain on the economy aside for a moment (politicians seriously mislead -read lied - about the financial cost of the program), what would be the impact of snatching up all or most of the children in this way, and raising them in daycare centers? If I can figure out how to post on this forum, i'll post something rather telling about daycare and its effects on children.