China, India and Africa do control most of the world's population.
Africa, for all it's population and resources, is a disorganized, backward continent led by corrupt rulers with nations that constantly fight amongst themselves.
China has lied, having only about half the population they claimed. China's population is rapidly aging as the birth rate is very low. China has destroyed its environment which will haunt them badly for the next 30 years. China is rapidly losing industry to other nations.
India has enough problems without creating more for themselves. India is in no position to run the world, nor would they even try.
Andrew Tate seems to think that resources + population = strength. It doesn't.
That's why 0.01% of America rules the other 99.99%. Same for Europe. Do you honestly think they care about being outnumbered by us? Does our having more resources than them impact their power in any way?
I'm not concerned with what Andrew Tate thinks. His arguments are flawed.
For decades these nations have ballooned off the backs of US taxpayers. China got our manufacturing that theyve used to invest in their belt and road project throughout africa. India takes our jobs with H1Bs and scams the elderly.
America and other predominantly WHITE european descendant western nations are not allowed to have their own countries anymore and are expected to allow these people to migrate here while breaking our laws. Our history is warped into our ancestors being villains despite building and creating what we all benefit from to this day, which has been deteriorating.
Lets get all of these chinese, indians, africans, muslims etc out of America, UK, Germany, etc etc and let them stay in their own lands. Will they still be as competitive on the global stage? Would be an interesting experiment
I have become more and more suspicious of population numbers over the last few years. I spent a lot of years in the long term care insurance industry. At one point, a Chinese firm thar was a type of real estate conglomerate was in talks to purchase Genworth which has the largest book of LTCI policies in the US. It was a weird deal that ultimatelydid not come to fruition, but basically, the story/issue was China knew where it was heading due to an aging population and one-child rule - who was going to take care of everyone? Anyway, you have, what two generations of one-child rule, yet the population kept expanding? Did people in Africa/India, etc. have double the number of kids to make up for that, especially as western birth rates fell? If you can't afford four kids, are you going to say, "Well, we need to make up for China's short fall this year, honey - move over!" Even if they did, it still too short of a time period. Last time I checked, it still takes 9 months, not counting nursing time, etc. I am not smart enough to figure the math, but something just doesn't seem right about it.
Did you know that the UN designated 10/12/1999 as 'The Day of Six Billion' ? I am willing to bet a nickel there is probably more to that. Right at the end if the 20th century and on the cusp of forever wars. The fact the rhetoric about climate rose at the same time makes me go 'hmmmm".
And yes, the argument that people are living longer - I am not saying that that is not true. But in 25 years we went from 6B to over 8B? A single generation and how many wars fought by people of child bearing age? Something does not add up. It is akin to the same idea that if it comes from Official Sources (TM), it must be true. Like 'breakfast is the most important meal of the day'. But is it?
China, India and Africa do control most of the world's population.
Africa, for all it's population and resources, is a disorganized, backward continent led by corrupt rulers with nations that constantly fight amongst themselves.
China has lied, having only about half the population they claimed. China's population is rapidly aging as the birth rate is very low. China has destroyed its environment which will haunt them badly for the next 30 years. China is rapidly losing industry to other nations.
India has enough problems without creating more for themselves. India is in no position to run the world, nor would they even try.
Andrew Tate seems to think that resources + population = strength. It doesn't.
That's why 0.01% of America rules the other 99.99%. Same for Europe. Do you honestly think they care about being outnumbered by us? Does our having more resources than them impact their power in any way?
I'm not concerned with what Andrew Tate thinks. His arguments are flawed.
For decades these nations have ballooned off the backs of US taxpayers. China got our manufacturing that theyve used to invest in their belt and road project throughout africa. India takes our jobs with H1Bs and scams the elderly.
America and other predominantly WHITE european descendant western nations are not allowed to have their own countries anymore and are expected to allow these people to migrate here while breaking our laws. Our history is warped into our ancestors being villains despite building and creating what we all benefit from to this day, which has been deteriorating.
Lets get all of these chinese, indians, africans, muslims etc out of America, UK, Germany, etc etc and let them stay in their own lands. Will they still be as competitive on the global stage? Would be an interesting experiment
If people stop selling out America then China will fall completely on its own. America is the life support for BRICS, but that is ending.
I have become more and more suspicious of population numbers over the last few years. I spent a lot of years in the long term care insurance industry. At one point, a Chinese firm thar was a type of real estate conglomerate was in talks to purchase Genworth which has the largest book of LTCI policies in the US. It was a weird deal that ultimatelydid not come to fruition, but basically, the story/issue was China knew where it was heading due to an aging population and one-child rule - who was going to take care of everyone? Anyway, you have, what two generations of one-child rule, yet the population kept expanding? Did people in Africa/India, etc. have double the number of kids to make up for that, especially as western birth rates fell? If you can't afford four kids, are you going to say, "Well, we need to make up for China's short fall this year, honey - move over!" Even if they did, it still too short of a time period. Last time I checked, it still takes 9 months, not counting nursing time, etc. I am not smart enough to figure the math, but something just doesn't seem right about it.
Did you know that the UN designated 10/12/1999 as 'The Day of Six Billion' ? I am willing to bet a nickel there is probably more to that. Right at the end if the 20th century and on the cusp of forever wars. The fact the rhetoric about climate rose at the same time makes me go 'hmmmm".
And yes, the argument that people are living longer - I am not saying that that is not true. But in 25 years we went from 6B to over 8B? A single generation and how many wars fought by people of child bearing age? Something does not add up. It is akin to the same idea that if it comes from Official Sources (TM), it must be true. Like 'breakfast is the most important meal of the day'. But is it?