Sorry it took so long, I was waiting to see who else does The Noticing. Everyone noticed the many absentees, the empty seats and the general nervous vibe at Davos 2023, reeking of desperation. I don’t know anyone who noticed something that seems way more striking to me (I’m sure there are more people, but they aren’t on my radar) . So:
Not one peep at Davos 2023 about the most recognizable brands emanated from ( as opposed to “recruited by”) the WEF!
Let me repeat that:
You haven’t heard one single mention of The Great Reset and Build Back Better at Davos 2023. (Some of you think BBB is Biden’s buzzword, but Schwab’s team came up with it, Trudeau, BoJo and even Modi uttered it many times before Biden ever heard of it.)
This is your brand on WEF. Whether personal or corporate.
Meanwhile, Davos 2023 hosted several panels about independent media and opposing influencers, plus countless more mentions in other discussions.
One Alex Jones video still gets more real and organic eyeballs than all Davos 2023 videos summed up.
This is your brand’s future with us.
How come?
You see, societal cancer obeys the same laws as body cancer:
#0 Cancer is suicidal by nature, success only nears it to self-extinction, while healthy organism define success as expansion their lifespan, not size. Size only matters when it helps expanding the lifespan and the quality of that life. Schwab spends half his resources on life-expanding technologies, and the other half on acting as a cancer. That’s self-cancelling.
#1 The most expansive cancer disappears first. One way or another.
#2 Least resilient cancer goes second, healing still takes longer than #0
#3 Most benign cancer can go around for decades, sometimes without even being detected.
This is why most of you faired well before hooking up with the WEF and you will soon disappear after the WEF. “Pufff!” you go like The Great Reset.
My bet is Davos 2024 won’t be anything like the others, if at all.
Now you can’t say no one did the thinking for you.
Heal yourselves, join the healthy resistance!
Pro tip: Start by considering if Schwab’s mechanicist view of the world isn’t a bit (read “a hell lot”) dumb and primitive. As in “the polar opposite of genius”.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
When replacement migration happens in white countries, who are they replacing? I mean, it can’t be whites because White Replacement Theory is just a conspiracy theory, ADL and CNN told me so.
— ADL New York / New Jersey (@ADL_NYNJ) May 17, 2022
This came up in 2001, the year that started many migration waves and tsunamis.
United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration. Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
20000317
NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.
Major findings of this report include:
— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.
— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.
— Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.
— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.
— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.
— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.
— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.
— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.
— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,
in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.
Israeli rejection of Palestinian “right of return” is the same as “great replacement theory,” the conspiracy theory that drove the Buffalo shooter, Sen. Bernie Sanders adviser Matt Duss and several commentators said.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS. SEE DETAILS / ORDER
Censorship is what happens when people with greater powers than others go from saying “I hate this speech!” to factually suppressing that speech. Censorship IS hate speech enacted. Institutionally. Institutional hate that breeds more hate. And institutions follow an agenda. So there is a hate agenda.
Censorship has never protected anyone from hate. If only hate was just about speech! Censorship actually exacerbates hate through frustration. Most ideologically motivated mass shooters were deeply frustrated that their message was suppressed, and they killed people as a way to make themselves heard, among others.
In establishment’s propaganda, “hate speech” has become speech hated by the powers that be. Stalin and all communist dictators were branding any opponent “enemy of the people” and any dissenting speech as “subversive”. Replace that with the more contemporary “conspiracy theorist / terrorist” and “hate speech”, see if it reminds you of anyone.
Censorship means we are paying people to take away our speech and our vision. Collectively, censorship doesn’t happen TO us from an entirely external source. Censorship happens usually when a society abandons itself and the fight for freedom because it’s been bought up with more comfort or, more often, with promises of comfort. And, eventually, that comfort always proves to be less preferable than the comfort of liberty.
So censorship doesn’t really protect the people, but, in almost every instance, it has protected powerful and corrupt people from truth. Even the hate that it breeds fits a control agenda, because it’s divisive and it distracts us from lies, corruption and systemic failures. It robs us of messages of love and help from other people, when they go against the censor’s agenda . It’s just another typical situation of problem sold as a solution to itself. Logical hocus-pocus. That’s why they don’t properly teach logic in schools.
There is no way in which censorship can be beneficial, neither to the censored OR the censor. The latter always ends up suffering a form of strong backlash, because the energies it tries to suppress always find a way through, energy doesn’t disappear, doesn’t stay locked forever, it always transforms and manifests.
There’s no way censorship works for us, but there’s a million ways it can go against us.
Fight censorship simply by not participating in it and not collaborating with censors!
If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, so buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!
! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 