So if we take ~1 million immigrants a year (and population growing to ~350 million) as most likely, what is the "play?"
#1 is to expect continued asset appreciation. Get together whatever real estate you can now and leave it to your kids.
#2 is to expect a fairly "good economy" in a material sense, but an increasingly non-cohesive general population. In fact, there won't really be a general population.
Just like it's valuable to gain real estate now, you want to be cultivating some sort of beneficial ingroup now. You are going to want some "circle" much smaller than the super-heterogenous general population.
In a scenario of continued material adequacy but fast social change, you want your children to be meeting like-minded spouses. You need to be thinking of your future sons and daughters in law now!
So essentially the USA is on track to become a rather affluent, but "foreign" country.
Some legacy citizen will have great success on this playing field, some will fail.
It also make sense to be open to over-seas opportunities for yourself and children.
As the USA becomes more foreign, the rest of the World is ironically becoming more American.
There isn't really any good reason to regard the rest of the earth as a place that isn't available to you.
And of course (as always) the overwhelming factor that will decide family and group survival and thriving in this future is simply maintaining the morale to live.
Most families aren't making it and will be biologically finished in a generation or two.
The rewards may be great for those who compete successfully!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's do some more Sheeponomics. What is the total enterprise investment of 12 ewes and 1 ram, assuming you don't intend to purchase much feed?
In my area, you would want perhaps 60 acres of grazing. If you were lucky, you might find that (already fenced and with well) for $50K. The sheep themselves would be worth at least $2,600. Throw in some incidentals like a minimal shelter, water tanks, etc. and we could say 60K.
If we were to buy this with financing, we would expect an annual payment of about $5,000. Plus incidental costs which always occur, let's say $2,000. So we are looking at $7,000 per year.
Flock would be expected to produce perhaps 15 lambs, if you sold these lambs at auction for $150 a piece you would get $2,250, for an annual operating lost of about $4,700. And if you eat the lambs, they are effectively costing you $400+ a piece.
However, if you already have 60K cash it looks a bit different. By taking the cash out of bonds and buying land+sheep, you do lose 3K a year in interest. But you are getting either $2,250 a year by selling lambs, or you are getting lamb to eat and recreation also.
In effect the sheep are somewhat contributing to the profitability of your land investment. Which you might well want to do anyway for speculation purposes.
The basic concept of this calculation holds fairly true no matter where you go.
In greener places, the land carried more sheep but very often costs more to buy so it's not always cheaper in the end.
Some northern places have green land that is cheap, but have standing snow that requires feeding all winter.
Some places are better than others but there are a lot of variables to it.
Southern Missouri or somewhere like that might be best, IDK.
The number of acres needed is different everywhere. There are places where you would need much more than here, places where 12 sheep need 100 acres.
But that makes no difference. Price per animal unit is what matters.
100 acres that carries 12 sheep and costs 50K is the same effective price per AU as 5 acres that carry 12 sheep and cost 50K.
We've talked about cheap meat. Let's talk about expensive meat.
Just got done processing a sheep, medium sized adult ewe that I raised.
Yielded 25lbs of boned, trimmed meat.
I have probably $100 of feed into it. Processing took about 6 hours x $20 per hour = $120.
So my "break even" on that 25 pounds of meat is $220. About $9 a pound. And that doesn't count packing material, electricity for freezers, other costs of raising sheep, etc.
If I was selling it direct to you, I would have to charge at least $20 a pound to even make it worthwhile doing.
Under a true free market, without government subsidies or factory farming, meat would *start* at $10 a pound for the worst ground beef and would go up from there.
If you think you can produce boned/trimmed lamb for less than about $4 a pound (not including any labor) you are most likely wrong.
If you buy lambs for $100 in the spring, graze them on your lawn for free, and butcher them yourself in fall, meat still is ~$4 per pound.
Or if you own ewes, your total cash inputs into those ewes will come out to some thing like $100 per finished lamb, which brings you right back to $4 a pound for packaged meat ready to cook.
I'm not a sheep professional by any means, and if any real deal guys are reading, please correct me.
But I feel that if you can bring in a 100lbs live weight lamb with a total investment of about $100, you are doing really well.
That's about as efficient as anyone and allows you to profitably sell at general auctions.
Just as the "wheat field" was the icon of the old european civilization, cattle and the cattle drive must be the iconic myth of the new American civilization.
There is an ideology so common it may not yet have a name; let's call it "1st Worldism."
The belief that the values and lifestyles of the secular 1st world are good, and should be preserved.
Geert Wilders is a RW version of this. But others are Center-Left.
Suburbanism is another version of this; the desire for a secular or lightly-Christian, car centered existence with high comforts and consumption.
Differing degrees of 1st Worldism are often what drives arguments and debates on here.
There are many who are superficially on the same side, but have drastically different views regarding the value and future of current 1st world ways of living.
Rightists with a very "1st world" orientation tend to be extremely hostile to Islam, while Rightists who are 1st world skeptics often see Islam as at least a tentative ally against decadent and secular ways of living.
Likewise the "1st worldist" on the right is simply disgusted by things like immigrant food vendors on the subway.
Whereas the 1st world skeptic might not like the fact that they are immigrants, but the basic idea of such vendors is appealing.
Failure to adjust for population age structure is a sloppy practice you see a lot in "HBD" type statistics.
The most common age of white Americans is 58. For Blacks this figure is 27.
Even if they were otherwise identically, the younger population will have *much* more… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Same goes for cross national comparisons.
You will see people comparing nations where the median age is 50+ with places where most of the population are still teenagers, with no age adjustment.
Do you imagine an 18 year old man acts like a late middle aged one?
So considering that the modal white American is nearly 60 years old, it's actually rather amazing that they manage to commit any homicides at all.
Young women were carefully chaperoned for a reason.
Bride stealing, bride guarding, supervised courting . . . it all assumes young guys had that dog in them and would do the obvious if given a few minutes alone.
In "tradition" morals were largely socially enforced.
Enforced by family and the larger community, very often against the individual's will or desires.
Depending entirely on internalized guilt and inhibition in an environment of unlimited choice is anti-tradition.