America Becoming a Third World Country, UN Report Says

Elvis Dunderhoff

Guest


The two flavors of American women.

It’s fine. Don’t worry about it.

It was always like this, somehow.

RT:

The US is falling behind its developed-nation peers in checking the boxes of progress, according to a recent report from the United Nations Office of Sustainable Development. The country that last year ranked 32nd out of 193 UN member states has dropped 11 places in a single year and now trails even Ukraine and Cuba on the list, coming in just head of Bulgaria.

The ratings are based on a country’s progress in fulfilling the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, 17 metrics meant to epitomize societal progress. They include concrete achievements like “clean water and sanitation” and “zero hunger” alongside less defined aims like “quality education” and “responsible consumption and production,” but all are described on the UN’s website as critical to implementing the organization’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – something all member nations have agreed to do.

Scandinavian countries lead the UN’s rankings for 2022, with Finland at number one and Denmark, Sweden and Norway rounding out the top four. The first non-European country to make the list is Japan, which narrowly made the top 20 at 19.
So, this isn’t some political thing, where countries are being ranked on ESG or whatever. America probably ranks well on ESG scales. It’s just that it’s a total shithole country and everyone is poor and dying of drugs and the government doesn’t do anything about it.



Continue reading...
 

TheBoom

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
According to the RT article the decline is the result of racism. A woman told them. Why can't America get the good, productive racism that all non white countries have instead of the wimpy, ineffective racism only white countries have?
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬


The two flavors of American women.

It’s fine. Don’t worry about it.

It was always like this, somehow.

RT:



So, this isn’t some political thing, where countries are being ranked on ESG or whatever. America probably ranks well on ESG scales. It’s just that it’s a total shithole country and everyone is poor and dying of drugs and the government doesn’t do anything about it.



Continue reading...
ASK ANY SOUTHERNER. The Southern United States was always a Third World Country within a First World Country. Even before the American Civil War, Frederick Law Olmsted did multiple tours from end to end of Dixie and he described the paradox. The Plantations had ample grain, ample food, the Yeomen farmers did well, so long as they had woods with lots of chestnut trees, American Chestnuts is what Southern Hogs fed on, along with anything they scrounged, until they were corralled, fattened up on corn and slaughtered. This was most common in Appalachia and the Ozarks, and other extremely rural areas. The poor white trash, those people who lived in the majority-black plantation belt where the resources were largely stripped, barely had enough food for themselves and their milk cow and single mule ate corn shocks and leaves, along with grass they foraged. Corn shocks were this way. You went through the corn patch in summer, cut off the tops of the corn a couple inches above the ears, I think they did the leaves as well, which meant a standing stalk with ears on it. They'd go back later and cut down the stalks, put the corn in the crib for other uses and use the shopped up corn shocks for fodder for the milk cow and mule. Grain was purchased very seldom if at all, thus all the animals were emaciated. Life continued this way for alot of White people till the 1960's. Particularly in heavily black areas where they were in economic competition with Negroes. The South for whites only began to get less difficult in the Sixties for various reasons. With all the Sun Belt corporation moves and other things, it made employment more easy to get. I am no expert, I will let an expert speak to this
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬
The difference is today, where American Poverty was largely isolated to Appalachia, both Northern and Southern Appalachia, Dixie in the whole and other isolated places, now it is EVERYWHERE. Coupled with drugs and degeneracy, Id say in one way we are WORSE than Brazil. At least Brazilians have some religion, we dont even have that.
 

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
ASK ANY SOUTHERNER. The Southern United States was always a Third World Country within a First World Country. Even before the American Civil War, Frederick Law Olmsted did multiple tours from end to end of Dixie and he described the paradox. The Plantations had ample grain, ample food, the Yeomen farmers did well, so long as they had woods with lots of chestnut trees, American Chestnuts is what Southern Hogs fed on, along with anything they scrounged, until they were corralled, fattened up on corn and slaughtered. This was most common in Appalachia and the Ozarks, and other extremely rural areas. The poor white trash, those people who lived in the majority-black plantation belt where the resources were largely stripped, barely had enough food for themselves and their milk cow and single mule ate corn shocks and leaves, along with grass they foraged. Corn shocks were this way. You went through the corn patch in summer, cut off the tops of the corn a couple inches above the ears, I think they did the leaves as well, which meant a standing stalk with ears on it. They'd go back later and cut down the stalks, put the corn in the crib for other uses and use the shopped up corn shocks for fodder for the milk cow and mule. Grain was purchased very seldom if at all, thus all the animals were emaciated. Life continued this way for alot of White people till the 1960's. Particularly in heavily black areas where they were in economic competition with Negroes. The South for whites only began to get less difficult in the Sixties for various reasons. With all the Sun Belt corporation moves and other things, it made employment more easy to get. I am no expert, I will let an expert speak to this
But it was totally worth fighting a bloody war for so they could keep the negros around. They even assassinated the President who was going to boat them all back to Africa lol. But it was totally worth to not have to pick their own cotton, at least that is what Confederatards still seem to think.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬
But it was totally worth fighting a bloody war for so they could keep the negros around. They even assassinated the President who was going to boat them all back to Africa lol. But it was totally worth to not have to pick their own cotton, at least that is what Confederatards still seem to think.
Even after the War, once the Social Order was modified and reformed, the poorest Whites ie landless so-called White trash still found themselves on the absolute bottom, then the Poor White farmers, the decent people, when the American Chestnut Tree began to go extinct, their hogs lost the free food, thus they now had to pay for food to feed the animal they butchered in the fall, the animals which once foraged for free. Also the chestnut provided split rail fence, now they had to pay for barbed wire or build wooden fence which was more money. So the problems just began to compound one on top of the other
 

DaveA

Well-known member
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Is there a fourth world?
I consider "fourth world" to be any country presently undergoing a rapid depopulation from war, famine, or plague. Venezuela was fourth-world when half a million of its people fled to Roraima, Brazil's poorest state, but after they stopped arresting people for using US dollars, the country recovered to third-world status: poor but stable.
Third world countries don’t have tent cities filled with homeless junkies setup in urban centers.
They have favelas instead. Someone commented here that if LA were in Brazil, there'd be 5000 poor families living on the hillside under the HOLLYWOOD sign.
The South for whites only began to get less difficult in the Sixties for various reasons. With all the Sun Belt corporation moves and other things, it made employment more easy to get. I am no expert, I will let an expert speak to this.
I once visited Tennessee in August, and it was fucking HOT. Corporate America wisely avoided the South until air conditioning became cheap and widely available.
 
Last edited:

DaveA

Well-known member
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Yes, and you never have to go there or interact with the people who live there or even see them.
Your maid probably lives in a favela, and I'm sure she'd be happy to have you over for tea, if you dare.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬
I once visited Tennessee in August, and it was fucking HOT. Corporate America wisely avoided the South until air conditioning became cheap and widely available.
The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 which made possible RIGHT TO WORK LAWS, the end of Segregation, The Military Industrial Complex and Air Conditioning all combined at the same time. For instance, Texas is a major cog in the Military-Big Tech-Big Medical wheel and has been since WWII. This made it so that Texas businessmen began pushing for Open Immigration, as they saw places like India, the Arab World and Africa sending their college educated to Texas. Once Segregation ended in 1964, Hart Celler was passed, officially coming online in 1968 and Texas began recruiting thousands of these people to come there to their colleges. Houston is one of the largest concentrations of Nigerians outside of Nigeria on earth. A similar thing happened in the North Carolina Research Triangle, in Northern Virginia and of course Atlanta. At the same time, the Infrastructure in the Northern Cities was decayed, having not been really ever upgraded since the late 1800's-early 1900's and the Labor Unions were powerful. So it allowed them to effectively kill a good part of Unionized Labor, the Southern towns all had new Infrastructure as most of them just began building in the Sixties, so everything had a much more modern transportation-friendly structure than in places like Cleveland or Detroit. Plus with horrible winter weather being less of a worry and air conditioning keeping the summer handled, its just all around easier for operations to run smoothly. No work stoppages for extreme winter storms etc.
 

Iconoclast

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
American Chestnut Tree began to go extinct
What happened with this? Can you tell us more about it? It sounds like you've done a bit of reading on this, assuming you're not from around those parts.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬
What happened with this? Can you tell us more about it? It sounds like you've done a bit of reading on this, assuming you're not from around those parts.
The American Chestnut Tree is extinct mostly in its native range, because in the 1800's, some people began planting Chinese Chestnut trees and had no idea Chinese Chestnuts carried a blight that spread to the American Chestnut and destroyed them. The American Chestnut was the source of rail fences, the old-time split rail fences, they also fed livestock and the chestnuts were a valuable food for humans as well, they'd sell them at Christmastime. When the American Chestnut disappeared and its chestnuts, a valuable source of wood and food disappeared as well. This was complete somewhere between 1904 and 1930. Thing was they'd been disappearing from some regions long before that because of other diseases as well. Its like in New England, look at any depiction of a New England Commons or street before 1900 and its all ginormous Elm trees. Elms were always planted in towns there and elsewhere, but about 1920, Dutch Elm Disease began destroying them, finally spreading to most the USA by the 1970s. There are millions of Elm Streets in the USA, but most have no Elms
 

Jay.Que.88

What is Naxos, Tinos, Andros, and Delos,
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
But it was totally worth to not have to pick their own cotton, at least that is what Confederatards still seem to think.
But even that is somehow not entirely accurate, at least in my understanding. White people picked cotton.
My grandfather was born to a family of farm workers.
He picked cotton as a child, and left home at the age of 11 to work doing ___ and ___ before going to fight in Europe in WW2.
My father picked cotton as well, when he was a child, but it was only a few times.

But fair enough, because this was not in what you would think of as the South, so I can concede your point.

EDIT:
Even after the War, once the Social Order was modified and reformed, the poorest Whites ie landless so-called White trash still found themselves on the absolute bottom,
That was probably an accurate description of my grandfather's family. I know so little of the family history. Would that I knew more.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬
But even that is somehow not entirely accurate, at least in my understanding. White people picked cotton.
My grandfather was born to a family of farm workers.
He picked cotton as a child, and left home at the age of 11 to work doing ___ and ___ before going to fight in Europe in WW2.
My father picked cotton as well, when he was a child, but it was only a few times.

But fair enough, because this was not in what you would think of as the South, so I can concede your point.

EDIT:

That was probably an accurate description of my grandfather's family. I know so little of the family history. Would that I knew more.
Oh Whites always did harvest crops. The BIGGEST LIE told about Southern History is that Slavery meant Black Africans. Actually because Spain controlled access to West Africa until the 18th Century, England enslaved Welshmen, Scotsmen and thousands of Irish Catholics in the West Indies and America, along with convicts. These were a separate class, not indentured servants, I believe they had to be officially freed by Royal Decree, in other words, the man who owned them just couldn't free them, he had to go to the Royal Governor and get permission to do so. This practice ended with the American Revolution, but white slavery was never outright outlawed. In fact in 1857, George Fitzhugh in his book CANNIBALS ALL basically stated that if White slavery was wrong, so is the Bible, as slavery isn't racial. He actually called himself a Socialist, not in the terms of Marx, but Slave socialism. Worth noting no Confederate Leader ever went as far as Fitzhugh I dare say his threat to enslave poor indigent whites pissed alot of people off

Even after the War. Whites could still be bound out in labor contracts, I dont think that changed till the 20th Century
 

JR_Rustler_III

🇰🇷 Gookwaffen 🇯🇵
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩
Destructive Ceremonious Master
This practice ended with the American Revolution, but white slavery was never outright outlawed.
My understanding is, white slavery in America went into decline after Bacon's Rebellion in 1676. Bacon's Rebellion was extremely troublesome to the ruling class because black slaves and white slaves united against the oligarch landowners and the Colonial Governor. The solution was to separate the races by class, which meant either freeing the blacks, or stop enslaving whites. The latter was the obvious choice to make when you think about it. It's worth pointing out that the British actually hated the Irish and Scots-Irish, while probably not having any particular animosity against the blacks, and just based on that alone the British would have preferred to keep the Irish/Scots-Irish whites enslaved instead of the blacks. But when you take emotion out of the equation, and think it all the way through, you realize that choosing the blacks to be your slave class simply made more practical sense. The passage of the Virginia Slave Codes in 1705 signaled that, by that point in time, the colonies had largely transitioned to a black-slave-only regime.

Does this square with your understanding? I remember years ago, Musonius interviewed a guy on the Rebel Yell podcast who was writing a book on white slavery in America. Unfortunately I don't remember many details from the podcast. I seem to remember him saying that some whites were still being enslaved well into the 1700s via "indenture" (which was simply just a fancy word for slavery), and that the Quakers were really big into white slavery, which was shocking given their opposition to black slavery. Quakers always seemed like stupid faggots though so I can't say I'm surprised.
 

sandhedspile

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
We are third world on a steep decline because Oz is exposed. There is no democracy, never was. The jew oligarchs control culture and war, and the rest be happy with fast food, twerky mulattoes and porn, a leased front wheel drive shopping cart and betting on sportsball games with springy nappy broccoli haired jumping negroes.
 
Last edited:

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬
My understanding is, white slavery in America went into decline after Bacon's Rebellion in 1676. Bacon's Rebellion was extremely troublesome to the ruling class because black slaves and white slaves united against the oligarch landowners and the Colonial Governor. The solution was to separate the races by class, which meant either freeing the blacks, or stop enslaving whites. The latter was the obvious choice to make when you think about it. It's worth pointing out that the British actually hated the Irish and Scots-Irish, while probably not having any particular animosity against the blacks, and just based on that alone the British would have preferred to keep the Irish/Scots-Irish whites enslaved instead of the blacks. But when you take emotion out of the equation, and think it all the way through, you realize that choosing the blacks to be your slave class simply made more practical sense. The passage of the Virginia Slave Codes in 1705 signaled that, by that point in time, the colonies had largely transitioned to a black-slave-only regime.

Does this square with your understanding? I remember years ago, Musonius interviewed a guy on the Rebel Yell podcast who was writing a book on white slavery in America. Unfortunately I don't remember many details from the podcast. I seem to remember him saying that some whites were still being enslaved well into the 1700s via "indenture" (which was simply just a fancy word for slavery), and that the Quakers were really big into white slavery, which was shocking given their opposition to black slavery. Quakers always seemed like stupid faggots though so I can't say I'm surprised.
The book probably was by Michael A Hoffman II called, THEY WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE SLAVES: THE UNTOLD HISTORY OF THE ENSLAVEMENT OF WHITES IN EARLY AMERICA. After The War Of The Spanish Succession ended in a victory for Great Britain, the Habsburgs were driven from Spain and a Bourbon was placed on the throne which pleased France, but only under the assurance that no Spanish or French Bourbon would attempt to Unite the two countries, Britain won direct access to West Africa and thus could purchase slaves directly, before most of Africa's coast had been under the control of Spain and Portugal. As the Virginia Slave Code of 1705 was only in the Virginia Colony, that didn't affect laws elsewhere. According to Hoffman, the Colonies of New Jersey, Maryland and Rhode Island still had them as late as the Revolution. When you read about Colonial Era Virginia or that area it is a bit confusing, because the plantations often had both White servants and slaves, the switch to almost entirely Black came about with the Revolution. Also this class of Whites being enslaved, political agitators, criminals, etc with England out of America, were beginning to be sent to what is now Australia. It is well-known that George Fitzhugh in 1857 in Virginia strongly advocated for the resumption of White slavery. In Fitzhugh's belief, if we were to say Negroes and Whites are both descended of Adam as the Bible says, to say one is only a slave and the other only free is ludicrous. Fitzhugh said that the best way to deal with Poor Whites was to enslave them. That's in his book Cannibals All 1857.
 

JR_Rustler_III

🇰🇷 Gookwaffen 🇯🇵
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩
Destructive Ceremonious Master
As the Virginia Slave Code of 1705 was only in the Virginia Colony, that didn't affect laws elsewhere.
Good point but Virginia was the economic and political center of gravity of the colonies so you can argue they set the trend. It would make sense that it would take many decades for that trend to take hold in the rest of the colonies.

On a podcast recently, E Michael Jones suggested that a lot of white slaves were worked to death in order to turn Connecticut into farmland. Connecticut was a rain forest covered not just in trees, but also millions of rocks and boulders deposited there after the glaciers receded. The only way that kind of land could have been made useful was through massive amounts of human labor.

In Fitzhugh's belief, if we were to say Negroes and Whites are both descended of Adam as the Bible says, to say one is only a slave and the other only free is ludicrous. Fitzhugh said that the best way to deal with Poor Whites was to enslave them.
Basically, that's what the Jews and northern factory owners were doing, by creating debt and wage slaves. So when you look at it in that light, Fitzhugh's attitude seems quite reasonable. One has to ask, which is worse? Chattel slavery, or debt/wage slavery? At least the owners of chattel slaves get put into a position to actually care for the humans in their charge, as they literally have to live with them all the time. As Anglin has pointed out, back in the 1920s when historians decided to interview as many former slaves as they could before they died in order to get their thoughts down for the historical record, most of them thought being a plantation slave was far better than what came afterwards.
 
Last edited:

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬
Does this square with your understanding? I remember years ago, Musonius interviewed a guy on the Rebel Yell podcast who was writing a book on white slavery in America. Unfortunately I don't remember many details from the podcast. I seem to remember him saying that some whites were still being enslaved well into the 1700s via "indenture" (which was simply just a fancy word for slavery), and that the Quakers were really big into white slavery, which was shocking given their opposition to black slavery. Quakers always seemed like stupid faggots though so I can't say I'm surprised.
The Southern Nationalists, I agree with on many things, BUT some of them do purposely tell wrong or distorted history as they believe it supports their viewpoint or they go down these Libertarian Good and Bad Dichotomy arguments. I prefer not to do that. I don't have to say my enemy is WRONG to be RIGHT. I am RIGHT because I SAY I AM. That should be enough. Problem is too many guys fall into the whole Good-Bad Good-Evil dichotomy when arguing the point, then they will source Communist Historians to prove their point, not knowing or not caring that they are using bad information
 
Top