Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Save the NHS? It will take a lethal pandemic

The problem with Japan isn't fiscal. The problem with Japan is that Japanese men just aren't making Japanese women pregnant, and with barriers against both 'inter racial' breeding and immigration the population is not only in steep decline but is headed for extinction. No fiscal measures, however bold, can solve Japan's problem. Whilst the prospect of the Japanese people being wiped from the face of the Earth may cheer their old victims a bit, it does underline just how much comes down to population.  

Before the start of the Great War, a representative group of ten Britons would have had six adults and four children. Now it would have eight adults and two children. We are living longer and having smaller families. And as the NHS champions 'healthy' living it's also storing up future costs; having eliminated many external causes of morbidity, if we all also lost weight and stopped smoking and drinking we'd bankrupt the Treasury in twenty years, even if we saved it money next year. 

There are only two routes out of this. Import younger people who bear above average numbers of children to be future taxpayers, or correct the population balance. Only a lethal pandemic that strikes hard at anyone over 60 will effect the latter. With the highest population density in Europe, we've all but exhausted the potential for the former. 

Without one or the other, the NHS in its present form simply can't continue.


mikebravo said...

Looks like the Japanese may well have to abandon a large part of their country when Fukushima finally falls over.
As for our immigrants. Half of them don't come here to work anyway so I doubt it will take 20 years for the welfare experiment to implode.

Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Do I detect a strong whiff of eugenics at breakfast time?

Raedwald said...

Uhm, as someone who will hit 60 before the decade is out, I'm clearly in favour of seeing the NHS collapse rather than the alternative population adjustment .... thought I'd better declare an interest here

anon 2 said...

Oh but Raedwald, surely the NHS is the perfect instrument for population adjustment? It's been killing off elderly indigenes for at least two decades and, given that it employs fewer indigenes than aliens, there won't be any problem about stepping up the programme!

Then all the fifth-worlders need do is continue the immigration. Though how mother euro will extract the necessary from them is another matter :)

Nick Drew said...

all of organic life is a ponzi scheme

it works while the doubling-up is still possible

but when the growth dynamic is no longer available, it's decline - or worse

try as you might for 'sustainability', or even just stability: you're either growing, or it's the opposite

I have had conversations with continentals - whose own countries' age-demographics are headed for Japanese territory - who marvel at the UK's ability to manage renewal-by-immigration with (in their view) so little trouble

always helps to have the external perspective

"we've all but exhausted the potential

maybe? maybe not

marvo said...

The first thing to do is repeal the child car seat law. It effectively limits anyone on a normal income to a maximum of two children.
After that get rid of all the pointless rules making it harder to look after children, e.g. CRB checks for childminders, laws about latchkey kids, schools not allowing children to walk home alone. Yes there would be more accidents, but currently many more children are simply not born because the law makes them so inconvenient to have.

Anonymous said...

Mrs Proundie of Barchester @ 8:25:

'Goodness! Do I detect a strong whiff of eugenics at breakfast time?'

You do.

Replacing a population for economic reasons (cash) is about as bad as it gets. We can tell it's bad not just because the UN supports it (re: Peter Sutherland and 'de-homogenising') but also the EU.

Race-replacement is part of the UN's Agenda 21, a 'melting pot' programme starting with Whites - who at 8 per cent are currently the smallest race on earth. The aim is to create a nationless environment in Europe, then West in general.

Ultimately there will be no 'diversity' as distinct nations (peoples) will have been abolished, culturally and eradicted biologically. The science of anthropology will of course become pointless in Europe by the middle of the next century.

Think I'm joking?

The English were the first indigenous Europeans to become a minority in their own capital city at the beginning of the last decade of the 20th century. It passed without comment from any institution.


anon 2 said...

PS: All of you who have adopted the state of mind which assumes that we British are Europeans ----- personally, I refuse to consider myself, or my country, part of that foreign place. You see, the ice melted after the Younger Dryas, 10,000 years or so ago. Then the seas rose and, By the Grace of God, the British Isles became separate from euroland.

Then, when the ("Atlantic") Indo-European tribes migrated from the Black Sea area --- they found them a wonderful place where they could get as far away as possible from all those contentious devils who were always trying to enforce this or that authority upon them, while taking everything our ancestors could produce.

For all that time, we have fought for our freedom to be who we are and live in our own place and manner. Now, all of a sudden, you're all talking as if we were never anything different from the very devils who are busy activating genocide against us.

We are British indigenes -- not euro ones. And if our birth rate has declined, it's because large numbers of us refuse to populate the euro superstate, and/or to pay for enslavement to it.

Thank you. Rant over.
And the Best of British to the children of present-cay indigenes.

Flyinthesky said...

Flyinthesky said...

There are two warring factions at play here:
We have the government desperately trying to mitigate it's costs and responsibilities for national healthcare and GPs and companies trying to monetise it.
There is an overlap, neither, in general terms cares about "you".
The health profession has aggrandised itself by fear and inferred consequences of not being mindful of it, it has generated a need beyond the means of the governments ability to finance it, I hasten to add for it's own ends, not yours.
The government doesn't care about you just how much you may cost.
Your GP doesn't care about you, you're just the subject of a cost benefit analysis.
Next time your surgery contacts you it's not because they care about you it's that you're the current earning opportunity.
If the health service stopped trying to placate, by intent, the worried well they would save billions.
I want to consult a doctor when I'm unwell not to be summoned to facilitate their next earning opportunity.

Flyinthesky said...

As an afterthought, life rule 2 applies: Beware expert opinion as the principal beneficiary is often the expert. Which can be further extrapolated: beware government opinion as the principal beneficiary is often the government.

Matt said...

Why do people see a natural, voluntary reduction of the population as a bad thing? It's perfectly sensible to be opposed to such things as forced sterilisation and selective murdering but let's face it, these are not the things at work here. People are choosing to have fewer children and they are entitled to that choice.

The UK population continues to rise despite there being insufficient infrastructure to support a decent quality of life, let alone far too few real, productive jobs to go round. Hence we have huge numbers of people living in overcrowded high-density accommodation, suffering stressful and lengthy commutes every day to go to non-jobs (many in the public or "third" sector) where they are being employed basically for the sake of it because "unemployment is bad" and somehow this 9-5, 5 days a week thing is set in stone.

An ever-growing population is needed to support the ponzi scheme of an ever-growing public sector but it is not needed to support ongoing quality of life. Many animal populations fall after periods of exponential growth, not just because of disease and/or starvation but also because the reproduction instinct in those animals is attenuated at times of high stress. Overpopulation and overcrowding are prime causes of stress to the individual. I believe we are seeing a similar process at work in the UK human population, though the "instinct" change manifests itself as an array of conscious, "logical" decisions involving issues such as time, money, living space etc. A strong instinct to reproduce would likely override many of these "logical" reasons in the end, hence I believe there is indeed a change in people's subconscious behaviour mirroring that seen in other animal populations.

G. Tingey said...

the highest population density in Europe
Err ... NO
Ahem, cough: Netherlands

Anonymous said...


Pandemic in hospital management or general public? there are probably more of the former

Elby the Beserk said...

Get the Muzzies in. They'll sort out that collapsing birth rate in no time at all.

Elby the Beserk said...


Uk yes. England however, has a higher population density than any other major European country

"The count, which has been attributed to higher levels of immigration, shows England now has 395 people per square kilometre.

The figures were obtained in a parliamentary answer from the Office of National Statistics."

I guess one must credit our immigrants with some smarts, as they clearly don't want to live in Scotland, Wales or Norn Iron. Well, would you?

Anonymous said...

Well done you all.
You encouragted feminism and then abortion.
Voted for the Blair government. Agreed to never say words that you were told not to say.
Let the ppolice vigorously enforce this.
Let hate laws be enacted.
Became really underatanding of other cultures.
Accepted denigration of heterosexual males.
You got your way.
So what is your problem.