CONTEXT
For those that don't know, the methodology used in the US Census is intentionally flawed and designed to fracture various "white" groups in order to lower the "official" percentage of the white population. Most Hispanics should be, and traditionally were (since the early 1900s) included in the white demographic. The same is also true of the "two or more races" category, which likewise was created to further fragment the white demographic on "official" paper statistics.
If you account for both of these factors and/or use self identification, it's generally accepted that the US is roughly 75-80% white when you get rid of the intentional demographic fragmentation and account for racial self identification (Depending on the source you find, anywhere from 52%-60% of hispanics identify as white, and roughly 48-54% of all "mixed race" people identify as white in day to day life.)
Of course if you wanted to get a clearer picture then you'd have to get rid of the illegals, but that's where things get complicated since there's basically no way of determining what percentage of illegals actually answer census questions. But I think that, generally speaking, that 75-80% figure is probably an accurate range even if you deport all the illegals.
Well to the contrary, from what I've seen most actual research into the matter points to the fact that the whole "none" demographic was simply made up as a way to manipulate statistics. the most recent number I saw in research was that 72% of "nones" had religious beliefs and practices, such as praying, reading the Bible, believed in God, etc. etc. They just simply didn't attend Church or consider themselves part of a specific denomination.
The remaining 28% more or less fall into what you're saying. People who are "Christian", who basically just believe that God exists, but have never read a single Bible Verse and know literally nothing about God, Jesus, the Bible, etc.
As I said, the 84-92% figure covers everything from people with basic Christian beliefs, to the most devout believer. Realistically, even at the "official peak" of 90%, not every single person was a devout believer. You had people who worked 12+ hours a day in the fields or factories, and literally did not have time for Church, reading the Bible, etc.
They may have only had "basic" Christian beliefs, but the only thing that really matters is if Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior.
Either way, it's a bit unreasonable to assume everyone under the Christian demographic category is super devout. People's lifestyle, culture, etc. are all factors in such things.
Here's an example. My super uptight great aunt (woman is literally 90), would get angry at anyone for not going to Church, uttering the slightest curse word, etc etc. Real Church Lady type. She's the type of person most of these polls and surveys would categorize as "extremely devout".
On the other hand, I haven't been to an actual physical Church since the plandemic, when I lost respect for my former pastor and most of the people I went to Church with when they closed things down and started promoting the jab when it came out. I would technically fall under the "none" category if I were to categorized by most of these survey groups. (not that I've ever been asked).
Having said that, I've never felt closer to God than I have in the past few years. Doing a personal Bible Study where I just read the Bible daily in a time I set aside for that sole purpose, and watching based online messages from based preachers is my new thing.
Am I suddenly now "irreligious" as the None category would indicate? No, Because Jesus is still just as much my Lord and Savior as my Aunt's.
Another factor to consider, is the metric of viewership for online Church services. Did you know that even before the plandemic, Online Church Viewership for the past 13 years has been exploding? If I remember correctly it was something like the viewership rate was doubling every other year.
This is one of those metrics that pollsters "conveniently" overlook. If older people who are uptight about physical Church attendance are still going to physical Churches, where are all of these new viewers coming from if Christianity is on the decline? It's also convenient that they neglect that most of the viewership for online Church messages comes from younger people, the exact demographics that are often called the least religious.
And that's just one more example of how they manipulate the statistics to achieve their predetermined result.
Again, not saying everyone is a devout "church lady" type of Christian. But, I firmly believe that the majority of people at least have "basic" Christian beliefs and morals.
Not to be "that guy", but I wouldn't want national parks to be privatized. That's a disaster waiting to happen. First greedy developer to get their hands on will either start charging some ridiculous entry fee and run it into the ground, or start trying to clear cut and develop large swathes of the land into yet another crappy suburb or strip mall.
So yeah, BLM (Bureau of Land Management) can go screw themselves with all of their "federal land", but the national parks need to stay as is.
I didn't actually since I assumed that what even though it's used in small amounts, the silver in electronics was recoverable. If that's true, then that just further proves my point about why it should be so much more valuable than it currently is, and why when all the factors artificially suppressing it are gone, the value/price will skyrocket.
No earthly idea to be honest with you. My best guess for things like that and the small amounts used in tech products, is that we'll probably see a market for "recyclable silver", similar to steel and asphalt. When you have to buy new stuff, turn in your old stuff and get X% off the new product, or something along those lines.
Doubt it since Q specifically said Gold would destroy the fed, IE, we're going to a gold backed currency. So it can't be replicated or invalidated.
I wasn't saying it was, so long as it's a proportionally small percentage. A few new millionaires (and maybe a few billionaires) won't do much, especially when you consider that most of our current billionaires are going to be executed for crimes against humanity, ergo they'll basically just be filling the vacuum that the likes of zuckerberg, gates, etc. leave.
I was just pointing out that there would have to be some kind of correction, since keeping current values of money, AND having hyper deflation would be unfeasible.
As for the debt, no earthly idea. But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it depends? For example, take Bear Stearns, the fourth largest investment bank in the world that collapsed during the 2008 financial collapse.
The debt that all those people who had their mortgage and other debts to the bank didn't just disappear, they were rolled over to the new owner that bout out Bear Sterns, JP Morgan.
But what happens when NO ONE can buy out the debts of all these credit card companies and super banks?
Well that's never happened before, but assuming it happens, I'd assume that the debts just "poof", since there's no one to collect on them.
Honestly, wind is basically worthless no matter how you spin it. It's inefficient, takes up more land than needed, and kills eagles. The only "good" point it has, is that if done properly, it can be rather scenic (see the Dutch countryside), but I don't actually think those are power generating. I think those are the more classic type of windmill that are used for grain processing. Some may have been converted to power generation, but I digress. Wind is worthless for anything other than specific aesthetic purposes with a few practical applications.
Solar isn't up to par with coal or oil either, but at least it DOES have it's uses. Using Solar as the main source of power for a nation is retarded, but cutting it out is stupid as well since Solar, if done properly, is beneficial. Look at agrovoltaics.
Most agrovoltaics setups use a minimal amount of land, and make use of modern tech that use a different type of solar capture tech than the typical panels. I don't entirely understand the science myself given it's not my field of expertise, but from what I've seen looking into it, they basically use either a plastic or liquid medium on top of glass or between two slabs of glass that only absorbs the portion of sunlight that can be converted into energy for human consumption.
The rest of the light, including the parts that plants use for photosynthesis, passes through to the ground. In other words, you generate a decent amount of power, while letting your crops grow in a moderately shaded area. All without any use of the toxic metals and materials usually found in typical panels (since they use a different technology and medium),
I've even seen setups on large farms and ranches where the owner sets up "shade buildings" using these type of "solar panels" for cows, pigs, etc. Since the part of the light absorbed is the part that generates heat. Thus generating power while giving the animals a cool play to lay down.
So Solar, if using the proper technology, CAN be a net benefit, since not only does it provide farmers with a reduced power bill, but if they generate enough energy it could also be another source of income. It's not enough to replace oil and coal. But anything that makes farms more productive, and crops less expensive is a net benefit to society as a whole.
But like I said, this isn't achieved using panels. This is done using a modernized, updated version of solar technology that is a little more expensive than normal solar. So most of these "solar companies" will only make use of it in smaller scale projects since they want to squeeze every penny out of the scam of government subsidies by buying the absolute cheapest chinese solar panels that break as the drop of a hat.
Long story short, wind is worthless 99% of the time, but solar does have niche applications if using modernized methods and technology instead of the same crap we've had since the 80's (just made cheaper).
Good luck with that. It worked out "so well" for the Netherlands didn't it? Not only did the government end up losing, but it more or less united their population. But regardless, I can't speak for most of the nations on that list, but it won't happen in the US.
Literally every time the government (state or federal) has tried something like this (Usually using imminent domain for some stupid project or over some ridiculous tax reason) it's caused an armed stand off with the farmers, ranchers, and other patriots.
Bundy Ranch is probably the most famous example, but there's plenty more. Mass land confiscation is just impossible to do in the US without an armed conflict, and it always ends up in an armed conflict/standoff.
Beyond that, our nation was built on the back of farmers, so we have some of the most farmer friendly laws in the world. It's next to impossible for the feds to regulate anything related to farming or ranching outside of waste storage and disposal. It's why things like that are always done at the state level, because the feds can't do anything other than regulate storage and disposal of waste material through the EPA.
I can see california and new york trying to pass something along these lines, and failing massively. But pretty much every other state in the country wouldn't go along with this.
Besides all of that, something of this scale would take a literal act of congress to even begin to attempt something like this. And that won't happen given the fact that, despite being full of cuckholds, the house is under whitehat control and won't pass anything TOO bad or irreversible.
All in all, this is nothing more than lip service as far as the US goes. The rest of these nations might actually try it, but this won't fly in the US.
Women being put into the work force was nothing more than a ploy to reduce birth rates, decrease wages, and increase taxation. So yeah, I'd reverse it if I could given literally nothing good has come from it.
The sole outcome from women being in the workforce, is the rise of modern feminism. The "strong single woman who don't need no man" archetype that does nothing but complain about a fake glass celling while getting literally every opportunity thrown at them for no reason other than the fact they have a vagina.
So yeah, I'd reverse it if I could. 99% of women in the work force wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for diversity hire quotas. every single one of them would be passed over for a man 9 times out of 10.
And as for the low level jobs, let's be honest. If a woman could choose between being a stay at home wife/mom and working some dead end entry level job that literally anyone is qualified for, which do you think they would choose?
The "freedom" you're speaking of was born out of corruption and necessity. Corruption because the entire movement was born out of a desire to crash birthrates and increase the taxation base. Necessity, because once inflation got bad enough, families could no longer afford to live off of a single income, and nowadays, most individuals can't afford to live off of a single income.
It's not totalitarianism, it's common sense and basic logic. In the absence of outside third party factors, humans gravitate towards their natural roles. Get rid of all the limiting factors and propaganda being pushed down everyone's throats, and this will all happen naturally. Heck, the tradcon movement has been growing every year and is extremely popular among young family age people of both sexes these days.
So yeah, I'd reverse it if I could.
I used to be of that "let adults do what they want" mentality, but that has turned out to be a VERY slippery slope on multiple fronts. In regards to the gays it went from "let adults do what they want behind closed doors" to "let them get married" to "were going to groom your kids into fags against your will".
Porn is similar. It goes from "let adults do what they want" to "Porn should be regulation free since it's art" to "all porn should be free and accessible to everyone regardless of age." to "let's literally show porn to kids in class for sexual education."
They've been trying to do the same thing, unsuccessfully mind you, with guns, and successfully with drugs.
I doubt anyone here is going to say we should legalize all hard drugs. But I understand that certain things are just never going to be completely banned, even if it would make society better. So the best we could hope for is extreme regulation. For the gay problem I tend to like the Russian/Polish/Hungarian method, of not making it illegal, but making it illegal to advertise it, propagate it, publicly express it, etc. etc.
I suppose that goes back to "let adults do what they want behind closed doors", but so long as it doesn't go beyond that again, I guess that's the best we could ask for considering the stance most have.
Porn has a similar answer, regulate the ever loving crap out of it. Make it so it's not illegal, but put heft penalties on it's unauthorized distribution, age gate everything, make allowing kids access to it a similar crime to selling a kids drugs, etc etc.
Again, it'll be back to "let adults do what they want behind closed doors", but so long as we remain steadfast and don't let it go further again, things should be infinitely better.
I'd prefer a straight up ban on morally corrupt and illicit topics, but I know that's a tall order. It's not impossible, back in the good old days (1900-1960s), we DID have such laws that made homosexuality illegal, and banned it's propagation and advertisement, banned distribution of pornographic material outside of heavily regulated environments, hefty penalties for distribution and/or open advertisement depending on the topic.
But then everything was overturned in the courts over the last 60 or so years, and now we have our current situation. I hate to say it, but sometimes it's better in the long run to try and limit immoral and inherently corrupting topics, ideologies, material, for the greater good.
Using the drug example, we ban most hard drugs. I doubt there's anyone here that would argue we should legalize all drugs in the name of freedom. So the same logic applies to porn, homosexuality/transsexualism, communism/socialism, etc. etc.
Some stuff is just evil, and has no place in a society that wants the best for it's people.
Ads, it's like youtube. Youtube is technically "free", but you can either pay for a subscription or "premium" account in order to watch things ad free, or you have to deal with ads. And I'm not just talking about video ads. All the stupid pop up ads that are on every shady website.
It's not just porn, this is how most "illicit" internet businesses make money. Porn, game/movie pirating sites, illegal streaming services, shady file hosting sites (basically book pirating websites), etc. etc.
They all make money through ads or "premium accounts" with slight benefits, like zero ads, faster streaming/downloads, etc. etc. This is essentially how 99% of internet domain owners make money.
In all honesty, people only live on roughly 1-5% of the Earth's surface. The other 10-14% is just land we use for various purposes. IE, farming, ranching, factories, storage, oil refineries, etc. etc.
So push come to shove, we could use less land to achieve the same result using more advanced technology, especially post cabal when everything is more affordable, and we finally upgrade most of our infrastructure.
Ah yes, the "specialist". I don't really give much people any credit. If what they said was true, then why does literally every single officer of the law (Police, FBI, CIA, SWAT, Marshall Service, Rangers, State Troopers/Equivalent, etc. etc.) as well as the military carry openly?
Because 99% of the time it doesn't happen that way. I'm not saying it NEVER happens, because it does. But for most people it'll never go down like that. And even if it does, most people who carry will typically have SOME form of backup on them. Whether it's another, smaller gun hidden away on their person, or a knife, or even just one of those really heavy flashlights, there's usually a backup.
So if nothing else, during the "struggle" the person with the gun still has the advantage since they have multiple options, such as stabbing them or beating them to near death.
Besides, if nothing else, the "struggle" will end pretty fast once they realize they can't get the gun easily because of the retention holster. Either because they flee, or someone nearby attacks them to help the gun owner.
Comfort basically. For example, most people tend to either carry on their hip, or their appendix. The hip is the go too for most people, but at the same time there IS a difference between male and female. It's much more common for men to wear loose and baggy clothing that's "breathable". Ergo, putting a gun on your hip is much more comfortable and ergonomic for a man since he has more leeway in his pants to make room for a gun.
Contrast this with women, who tend to wear more form fitting or "skintight" clothing. Not as much room anything with an actually concealed holster/gun.
Likewise, for those that choose appendix carry, women tend to have a bit of an advantage over men. Given it's location, women can more comfortably carry a gun and holster since they don't have to worry about their genitals like a man would.
Ever sit for a few hours with a 3 pound gun grinding into your groin because you wore pants that were just slightly too tight when you added the gun into your ensemble?
Yeah, not a fun time.
So yeah, gender does make a difference when making these considerations. It's why there are whole companies dedicated to gender specific conceal carry wear. I really don't know how it works, but there do exist yoga pants, leggings, skirts, etc. for women that have some form of sorcery cast on them to enable them to hide full size 1911 or glocks without it printing.
Blows my mind, but they exist.
Likewise, there's men's wear that's designed to take advantage of the "looser" styles that men tend to favor in order to basically carry around a small armory with you. (I've seen some coat, shirt, pants combos that basically let you carry enough guns and ammo to arm a small squad with a full size pistol and a couple hundred rounds each).
So yeah, gender is a factor in these things. It's not something people tend to think about, but the differences between men and women (even small differences like difference in dress styles), tends to result in unique patterns that make them different.
Another recommendation if you choose to carry a makarov specifically.
https://zahal.org/product/fab-defense-pm-g-makarov-pm-pmm-pistol-grip-magazine-release-mechanism/
MUCH more ergonomic and faster mag changes when the mag release is in the same area literally every gun since the 80's has had it. Makarovs are good, don't get met wrong. But the butt bag release is it's one downside.
Luckily someone fixed that with a set of ergonomic grips.
Not really, that specific style of holster requires a very specific type of grip. you have hold in a particular way to be able to flip off the strap at the top and unholster the gun. Grab it from any other angle, and it's pretty much impossible to tug it out of the holster.
It's the same basic style of holster that police use to prevent their guns and backup guns from being stolen.
Most modern OWB (Outside the Waistband) holsters have some kind of mechanism like this (or some other kind of retention mechanism, like a button that can only be depressed when held from a specific angle) that prevent firearm theft.
Sounds like a faggot plant.
Calm down, it's just a primary. We won the last several elections in Virginia, despite the cheating. So I wouldn't say it's "not looking good". The things that motivated people in Virginia have only gotten worse since then. So if anything, I'd say our team is looking better than ever in Virginia, and most other states if I'm honest.
......You didn't read anything I said did you? I literally outlined why there's zero incentive to repurpose retail or office buildings into residential buildings. Yeah building new cities would work, but repurposing office and retail into residential pretty much never works unless it's HEAVILY subsidized by the government.
As I said, the biggest problems are the plumbing (You literally have to rip out 20+ floors of plumbing and replumb the entire building based on the new floor layout), the fire codes (Because residential firecodes are infinitely more strict than office or retail fire codes since the spaces are more confined, and fires are more likely), and just general weight, since all the added walls, plumbing, peoples crap, etc.)
You can preach all you want about "the greater good", but the people with actual money that build these buildings aren't going to just spend 100s of millions, or in some cases BILLIONS, of dollars "for the greater good".
There has to be some kind of incentive for them to do this. And assuming we're all correct and the income tax is going to be a thing of the past post-cabal.... Well, there goes the last actual incentive developers have to do anything like this.
If the LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credit) is done away with because the federal government no longer collects a federal income tax, then there is literally ZERO incentive for any developer to take on a project like this.
What's far more likely, is these buildings will devolve into urban rot, leading to the cities to condemn them, eventually resulting in them being torn down 40-50 years inn the future, which then would make the land plots appealing to developers again for things like residential, or whatever the current money making niche is.
That's assuming office and retail completely fails and never comes back, which also isn't true. I wasn't planning on giving this detailed of a response, but since my financial nerdery is flowing, I might as well.
The reason that so many office and retail properties are failing isn't because people aren't going back to the office (they are, in a hybrid setup if nothing else), or that people aren't going to physical stores anymore (Has actually been increasing despite things like Amazon).
The reason, is that the owners got screwed on the interest rates for their loans. Commerical real estate isn't like regular residential real estate (Single family homes). The loan terms are vastly different.
Here's the basic outline for a CE loan. 5 years at X% with an adjustable interest rate.
As a result, in most cases, commercial real estate isn't a "buy and hold" game. It's usually more of a "buy, fix/build, hold a few years, sell" kind of game. CE owners rarely pay down the principal on their loans since they intend to sell them within one or two refinance cycles. People like Trump who outright own buildings worth hundred of millions or billions of dollars are REALLY rare.
What's currently happening is simple. The owners refinanced during that period a few years ago when interest rates where 1%~. Now, a few years later, we have record high inflation and sky high interest rates. So those refinanced buildings have had their debt payments skyrocket over the course of a few years. So much so, that they now no longer produce enough income to justify owning them.
THAT is why, retail and office are failing. Residential and hospitality haven't been hit yet, since they generally speaking have higher cap rates (The way you measure your cash flow), than Retail and Office. But they'll be hit soon enough as well.
Long story short, there's no way to give a large enough financial incentive to repurpose office and retail buildings into apartments, and office/retail isn't even really dead. Companies are just getting screwed on the interest rates.
Won't happen. Mainly because the internal infrastructure is too different for an easy conversion. People REALLY need to stop insisting that we convert office buildings into apartments.
It's not that it's impossible to do, it has been done before. But there's a reason it's not more common. It's so cost prohibitive to do, that only those with money to blow who're looking to harvest LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) bother doing it. And even then, they'll only do one or two buildings a year, since the cost of properly converting an office building into an apartment building is equivalent to ground up developing 4-5 similar size apartment buildings.
It's just not economically feasible. The interior layouts are too different. And I'm not just talking about floor plans. It's the building guts too. Fire codes are different, piping systems are different, heck, even the foundation standards are different since office buildings typically will have lower weight ratings than an apartment building.
So not only do you have to gut a massive 20+ story building and completely redo the plumbing, water, electrical, etc. But you'd also have to upgrade the internal support system so the building can stand the extra weight of all the residents crap, the new walls, new plumbing, etc. etc.
Malls are a little bit more feasible since skyscraper sized malls are actually rather rare (malls are almost always on first several ground floors of super tall buildings). But even then, you still suffer from the exact same problems.
In either case, it'd be more cost effective to just demolish the building and build a whole new residential building in its place most of the time. But then you run into OTHER problems.
Like zoning. Legally, a developer can't just build residential buildings wherever they want. It has to be zoned for it. And unless the areas that these hypothetical office buildings/malls stand on are already zoned for multiuse, then you'd have to apply to get the plot rezoned, which in most major metros (with the notable exception of Texas since most Major cities in Texas have no zoning laws and instead use an individual permit system) takes anywhere from 6 months on the low end (if you're lucky and know all the right people) to 5+ years (Much more likely).
And even then, after waiting for literal years, there's no guarantee you're rezoning request will be approved.
THIS is why mass conversion of malls, office buildings, etc. is a pipe dream. There's little appeal to developers (the people actually fronting the money and funding the projects), and it's actually disadvantageous to all but the absolute biggest developers since it means locking up 10s of millions to 100s of millions of dollars, usually with 75-90% of it being leveraged in most cases to maximize returns, for years with no guarantee that they'll even be able to finish the project since they may get denied on rezoning.
What investor/developer in their right mind would think that's a good idea? Locking up 10s-100s of millions of dollars for literal years, while paying massive debt payments on this basically useless property with little to no cash flow, all while there's a high chance they'll just be rejected for rezoning and be stuck with a worthless property that does nothing expect drain money from them in the form of debt payments, upkeep, and taxes.
This is the biggest problem with this mentality. People who insist on mass conversion of commercial real estate from one from to another don't understand the complexities involved in doing so, or the financial risk/burden the ones fronting the money have to go through. There's VERY LITTLE incentive to do so for anyone that isn't just looking for a tax write off. And even then, the tax write offs are only lucrative enough to get the biggest builders to only do this for a few large scale buildings a year.
All those small and medium sized office buildings and malls? Yeah, literally no one will ever touch those. The tax write off for those buildings doesn't justify going through the trouble and headache of dealing with all of the above mentioned problems.
Again, it's not that it's impossible, it's just that there's little to no incentive to do it, and the financial burden it creates on the developers makes it a pipe dream.
Pretty much the only buildings that are suitable for apartment conversions are hotels, and SOME hospitals (really depends on the layout of the hospital). And even then, the apartments are usually those stupid small studio apartments that are basically glorified cubicles.
So you know, not exactly conducive or attractive to anyone other than a college age kid looking for their first place after they move out. Anyone who isn't a late teens early 20s bachelor(ette) would immediately be cramped, want something bigger, etc. etc. And forget having a family. Who can raise a family in a 600 square foot apartment? You'd be lucky if you could somehow manage having a cat or a small dog in such an area.
Not trying to be a butthole, but reality is different from what most seem to think it is when it comes to commercial real estate repurposing.
I've had similar things happen. Posts taken down when asked if other's are hearing rumors about specific debauchery in public schools (in my case I was asking if schools really were being run over by furries with litter boxes as some insist they have).
Was told to "stay on Q". And I was just dumbfounded, since you know. The whole point of Q is "saving the children", but when asking if school debauchery is actually happening my post was taken down for being off topic.
Doesn't happen too often, but I have a distinct feeling one or two mods, who shall remain unnamed so I do get banned, get butthurt (pun intended), when you bring up specific topics. Usually revolving around something involving some form of faggotry (posts about the gays are usually taken down if they don't get enough traction or upvotes within the first 30 minutes to make it suspicious that the post was taken down).
Doesn't always happen, but it's impossible to not notice that it DOES happen.
I believe the "official" reason they take down certain "spicy" posts is because they don't want the MSM to be able to take a screenshot and make a story out of how we're "a bunch of anti semetic/anti gay/anti whatever the post is about" cult members or whatever the current set of names/buzzwords they're using are.
Personally, I don't agree with that, assuming that IS what's going on, but whatever. I'm not a mod so nothing I can do about any ridiculous intergroup faggotry going on in the background other than point it out when the topic comes up.
Isn't this the same county that is being called a "Far right Christian Nationalist Stronghold" by the MSM because of how much they swung to the right in the 2022 elections? My understanding from a quick google search is that even by most standards this county is a long held conservative stronghold and has been called a "Christian Stronghold", because of the large and prolific Chrisitan population.
Seems to me this moron is just delusional.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Actually thinking about it, that seems pretty likely. They lie about literally everything else and all their "research/surveys/polls" have been exposed as lies the past several years. So why would birthrate data be any different?