Deagel and the End of The World as We Know It

MODS: Sometimes I can't quite pick out the right forum to start a thread in. If this ain't the right one, please reseat it elsewhere.

==================================================================

Recently, projections for world populations, and in particular US population for the year 2025 at Deagel.com have raised alarm. Projections for the US population in 2025 at that site are down by 78.2 percent, to 69 million. Citing the drastic population decrease given there, many are fearing a violent and intentional depopulation, most especially due to an Ebola pandemic.

Deagel themselves noted the alarm, and posted an explanation at the bottom of this page, which is still there as of this writing. It has been saved for posterity (and to preclude it's disappearance from the internet) in this post by phoenix9884 at ATS, with both screenshots and a transcript. My initial analysis of that can be found here. This thread is to expand on that, and bring more minds into the discussion of the ramifications it presents.

Unfortunately, due to the ramped up fears of an Ebola pandemic, Deagel chose to use that potential as an example of how things can get out of hand due to factors external to any actual event and intensify it, and predictably, perhaps, many seized upon that section of the explanation as evidence for Deagel's advance knowledge of intentional depopulation via Ebola.

That's not what Deagel said, it's only how some folks chose to take it.

The Deagel explanation gave a number of intricately interwoven and mutually dependent factors which, combined, could lead to a cascade effect reducing the population of the US, which is what their projection predicts. It used a potential Ebola pandemic as an example of how things could get out of hand when those interdependent factors play off one another and combine to make things worse, but specifically said that no pandemics were factored in to the projection.

In broad strokes, Deagel is predicting the migration of "western civilization" centers westward from the US into "the east", and southward into Latin America. When people "follow the money" as they always have, that will serve to decrease certain "western" populations, while at the same time increasing eastern and southern ones, which that population is moving TO. That is how the US reached the population pinnacle it did - people migrating to "here" from "there" in search of financial opportunity. It's not a surprise move, and certainly nothing new. Migrations are older than humanity.

Deagel posits that "western civilization" began around the Mediterranean, migrated northward into Europe, and when it had nearly stripped Europe, westward to the Americas - now that it has nearly stripped North America, Deagel is predicting that it moves on westward and southward, like a horde of ravaging locusts, moving on to where the pickings are better.

Evidence for a migration is already present, although not yet in the numbers that would result in such a drastic depopulation within the specified time frame. There has been an upsurge in expatriations in recent years, enough to alarm the government. As of this past September, the US government has raised the price of renouncing US citizenship by more than a factor of five fold, from 450 dollars to 2350 dollars, in an apparent attempt to stem the hemorrhaging of money out of the US that goes along with the expatriations.

From 2001 to 2008, the US had 3937 expatriations. From January 2009 to June 30, 2014, the number had risen to 9566. Not a huge number, granted, but it shows an escalating trend, from nearly 500 per year up to more than 2100 per year. The phrase "rats deserting a sinking ship" comes to mind, but it seems that the government itself is blaming the exodus on Administration policies tightening the noose on people "hiding" money overseas - they have netted 6 billion dollars in taxes and fees due to that noose-tightening effort so far, and evidently the folks with money are now giving their response.

Source for migration figures, but there are more to be found by googling such terms as "expatriation".

With so-called "globalization", industry, money and finance have been steadily moving off shore (from a US perspective) for quite some time now, and people are following it. It's that simple. Other countries are also projected to be hard hit with depopulation, although few if any as hard as the US. Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries, and even the UK are projected to have drastic population decreases - in the case of the UK, 49 percent, the others having worse numbers. Concurrently, Asian nations and Latin American nations are projected to increase populations, while the world overall has a 200 million or so decline.

As the "money people" take the money - and the jobs - elsewhere, people will follow opportunity to wherever it alights.

Along with people leaving to follow the money, a potentiating factor will be the money itself leaving. As the economy spirals downward, there will be less and less money to pay for things to sustain life - certain life extending drugs come to mind. What happens when a diabetic can no longer afford insulin? A heart patient their nitro? What happens to health standards when competent physicians ALSO go follow the money, right out of the country? An overall decline in American health along with an inevitable rise in the death rate of those who remain behind would serve to intensify the depopulation, no Ebola necessary. Deagel projects that the US fall will be similar to the Soviet collapse, but harder, because we have farther to fall. Many people here will simply not be able to adjust to the new harsher reality, and will die from that inability.

Remember reading about the "Irish Potato Famine" of the 1850's? Where did all those Irish go to keep from starving? that sort of depopulation is what Deagel predicts - a drastic fall in some populations resulting in an increase in others via emigration, death and misery among those who remain.

While some may view the headline to this thread as sensationalist, I submit that such a drastic change in money and population patterns WOULD end the world "as we know it", while at the same time presenting an entirely new world to deal with and get used to, a new face of the world to get to know.

Nevermind

a reply to: nenothtu

North America is nearly stripped?!?!?!

Have you been outside lately? North America is one of the most natural resource rich parts of the entire planet. Arguably the best in terms of availability (unlike the amazon rainforest) and the best in terms of moderate climate and terrain for farming (unlike Russia and china)

The United States of America has the real potential to do things right. We have the land and space and human resource to implement anything needed to help maintain stability in the future.

I'm not sure how this little obscure means nothing website is gaining so much traction but its silly... I'd believe the galactic council before I believe anything from that deagel site.


I'd also like to add my suspicion that the owner of that site is monitoring this activity and either getting a good laugh or whatever but I'm pretty sure peeps are gettin trolled.

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
Topic already exists here.

This thread was requested in that thread, here, because of the different perspective.

originally posted by: mindseye1609
a reply to: nenothtu

North America is nearly stripped?!?!?!

Have you been outside lately? North America is one of the most natural resource rich parts of the entire planet. Arguably the best in terms of availability (unlike the amazon rainforest) and the best in terms of moderate climate and terrain for farming (unlike Russia and china)

The United States of America has the real potential to do things right. We have the land and space and human resource to implement anything needed to help maintain stability in the future.

I'm not sure how this little obscure means nothing website is gaining so much traction but its silly... I'd believe the galactic council before I believe anything from that deagel site.


I'd also like to add my suspicion that the owner of that site is monitoring this activity and either getting a good laugh or whatever but I'm pretty sure peeps are gettin trolled.

They don't care about the resources - they care about the money, and it's leaving. Where the resources are and where the money is are two different things - two different things which don't always coincide in location. Resources can be (and usually are) stripped and sent to where the money is, for profit.

If the US has the "potential to do things right", why isn't it?

If the US has the "human resource to implement anything", why is industry running to get off shore?

Yes, I've been outside lately.

I've also been to Detroit.

a reply to: nenothtu

Crunch the numbers. Current population of 319,000,000 now down to 69,000,000 by 2025, just 11 years from today? 250,000,000 migration in 11 years seems pretty unrealistic, doesn't it?

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: nenothtu

Crunch the numbers. Current population of 319,000,000 now down to 69,000,000 by 2025, just 11 years from today? 250,000,000 migration in 11 years seems pretty unrealistic, doesn't it?

It does.

Are you factoring an increased death rate into your number crunching? Another cascade could potentially be an increase in violence due to the depressed economy (although that isn't specifically mentioned in the Deagel prognostications - but I'm sure that a lot of potentials aren't mentioned).

Even with all factors I could think of figured in, 250 million is a pretty sharp decrease for an 11 year period - but not impossible. It just would mean a LOT of misery to go around, from a variety of factors. Unlikely, but not impossible.

I'm not saying Deagel's projection is right - or that it's wrong. I'm only saying that the way the numbers presented there have been interpreted isn't the interpretation Deagel is giving for them.

Thanks for posting this further discussion thread, nenothtu.

I agree with the OP; I have to wonder exactly how long the populated areas of the NE and the Midwest will stay populated when the fracked natural gas supply runs low? Those houses are uninhabitable without a working furnace, and the winters are getting ever more extreme.

Where are the babyboomers who have been victims of the banking industry and the sold out politicians going to go when they can't afford housing in the U.S.? I'll tell you where, where I'm thinking of going, to the highlands of Mexico, or a tiny house in someone's backyard, or screw the crummy weather, somewhere warm, sunny, with a beach and a few housemates.

I know from friends in the medical profession that MDs and RNs are leaving the business and/or the country in droves; we need millions more medical personnel to handle the Obamacare 47 million, and instead they're all going somewhere where the patients can pay the bills. My own small town in southern Oregon has a **** of a time bringing in medical professionals; they typically stay for three years on contract while their student loans are being paid off, then bug out, leaving all their patients in a lurch with no easy replacement. In three years, it's happened to me 3 times now...

What about the cost of food in a place with lousy weather half the year? The cost of trucking all that food to supply the millions in the NE corridor, if fuel costs increase and truck drivers stay as PO'd as they are now? Better to be in a place right next to where the food is grown... then there's taxes, utilities if you can get them, and the consumerist lifestyle breathing its last. People are wising up to the constant advertisements to buy, buy, buy and work, work, work to pay for it.

Obviously, any pandemic will be a case of 'all bets off' almost immediately. At this point, I'm just looking at the demographics of the next 20 years and thinking the U.S. is a goner except in pockets that will be self-sustaining, and even then it won't be pretty. It's been my experience that people tend to stay in place for two reasons and two reasons only; that's where they've always lived and they don't know any better (AKA inertia) and family/jobs. But that leaves an awful lot of people that realize there are other options where dumbnuts don't shout 'USA! USA!' every time a drone hits a target.

If you haven't yet read it, may I suggest Dimitry Orloff's hilarious and prescient book, 'Reinventing Collapse' along with the old classic 'The Long Emergency' by James Kunstler. They are both playing out as we speak.

Oh, and another thought to add to this soup: there are approximately 76 million babyboomers; how many of them aren't going to make it another 10 years? It's not like the government WANTS them to live ten minutes past their Social Security age... personally I'm convinced that now that I've figured out what's really going on and am on to their scams, they're trying to kill me off with various 'denial of services' and such.



And the millennials aren't reproducing, they can't afford to.

If the babyboomers were the demographic version of a wild pig moving through a python, the next few years (starting in 2008) are a garter snake on a crash diet wearing a tight corset.

a reply to: nenothtu

What I find interesting is what they site as sources at the bottom of the page:

"US Department of Defense, Department of State, CIA, World Bank and European Union."

a reply to: signalfire

My sister is a nurse in a small town, and yeah, it's rough. I know of another entire county, in WV, where the entire medical staff for the whole COUNTY just stays long enough to pay off their education on contract, then scoots - and all of those docs are foreigners... can't get an American doctor in there to save their asses. Literally.

I guess the upside of that is that the survivors tend to be tougher than the average. Darwin at work.

I feel for ANY urbanites, but as you mentioned, those in the northeast especially. Urbanites in general are not as well prepared for survival without the infrastructure necessary to maintain their urban environments. As that infrastructure breaks down (not just heating, but water transport, electricity, transportation in general), they will be left without much alternative other than predation, and that can't go well. What's the quickest way to realize a depopulation and consequent thinning out of the herd per square mile? Zapped cities, where populations are concentrated.

ETA: I recall a "depopulation" in the late 70's/early 80's that left one northern city with a population of 750,000 vs. the 3 million it started out with, due to an industrial collapse, in just a couple years' time. Imagine that on an epic scale. My figures may be a little off there, because I wasn't paying that much attention at the time - I was one of those getting the hell out of Dodge.

originally posted by: Klipothian
a reply to: nenothtu

What I find interesting is what they site as sources at the bottom of the page:

"US Department of Defense, Department of State, CIA, World Bank and European Union."

If they're worried, maybe we should be, too...

a reply to: mindseye1609

The United States does not encompass all of North America. Ergo, the US does not have control of "all of the rich resources in North America".

You do realize this, right ?

a reply to: nenothtu

No, you shouldn't. What this whole thing fails to point out, but another user did, is that there really isn't anywhere left to go.

The EU is a cluster #.

Russia actually can compete with us in terms of grain exports and other areas, but its climate is horrid and vast areas are largely uninhabitable.

Africa and the Middle East can't pull their heads out of their asses.

India and China will choke on their own populations and pollution.

South America could be a threat, but corruption is just too rampant for their people to make real go of things...

Its basically the US, Canada and Australia.

A population drop like that has to be over 50% casualties, no way 200 million just leave, we have too many guns for that #.

a reply to: Thorneblood

"Nowhere to go", and yet people ARE leaving, in record numbers. Hmmm...

Oh, I'm not going to bail this time - I'm too old for that. this is where I make my last stand, for better or for worse.

I was pretty shocked to discover that the area I'm currently in is now considered an "urban area" - I look around me and wonder just how THAT happened! LOL!

ETA: I have to wonder how China hasn't ALREADY choked on their own population, at 141 people per square mile... and yet they are still building all those empty "ghost cities"...

Thanks for the thread.

The "Deagel" website isn't even needed to be referenced in order to understand a collapse is coming. Will there be a massive population decline? I say it's very possible, if not probable. Ron Paul and other very educated individuals in economics have been saying it for years. It's not a question of if a crash will happen, it's a question of how hard the crash will be. Since the FED has virtually ignored the fact that a soft landing is in order, it's done nothing but recklessly print money making the odds of an inevitable and very, very hard landing, a very likely, real possibility soon .

I also place much of the blame on the people who allowed what's coming to happen. The story has been told and re-told many times, while your average "comfortable" American ignores it. Instead, average Americans sit there, basking in superficial social trends and political correctness, completely oblivious to what is happening around them. I blame those who ignored it. We could have, and should have had the largest revolution America has ever seen by now, yet most people would rather focus their time and effort making everything about "race" and arguing over whether it's ok for women to kill their babies or not. The country I live in has gone bat-# insane, so this is a clear case of reaping what we sow.

a reply to: Wookiep

You're welcome.

Deagel isn't necessary, they've only provided a set of hard numbers, which may or may not be "correct" as a projection, and that serves to open discussion - but I think personally that it's too late for discussion. It's coming. The only question is how fast or how slow, how long the misery is to be drawn out, or how sudden a shock it is.

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: nenothtu

No, you shouldn't. What this whole thing fails to point out, but another user did, is that there really isn't anywhere left to go.

The EU is a cluster #.

Russia actually can compete with us in terms of grain exports and other areas, but its climate is horrid and vast areas are largely uninhabitable.

Africa and the Middle East can't pull their heads out of their asses.

India and China will choke on their own populations and pollution.

South America could be a threat, but corruption is just too rampant for their people to make real go of things...

Its basically the US, Canada and Australia.

A population drop like that has to be over 50% casualties, no way 200 million just leave, we have too many guns for that #.

Thanks for this synopsis, I actually laughed out loud.

But I don't understand what you mean by the last bit - no way 200 million just leave, we have too many guns for that'

What difference does the amount of guns make to people who want to leave the country for better locations?

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not saying that it couldn't happen but I just can't see it happen. Although the US started it's decline with the passage of NAFTA during the Clinton era and this POS we now have in the White House is not helping maters trying to pass even more secret trade agreements, the decline this report implies a complete collapse of the nation. I can't see TPTB allowing that to happen considering that the US military is their primary global enforcer. Their strategy over the past 25 years has been to transform the US from an industrial society into a consumer society with the underdeveloped nations providing what we consume. The migration this describes implies that the population will be dispersed over vast areas of the 3rd world which would render those PTB toothless to defend their New World Order. Besides that, I guarantee, if that happens, China will be more than happy to allow, 'force" several hundred million people to migrate here. As I said, I can't see it. The last time North America was discovered was from across the Atlantic. The next time would be from across the Pacific.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a few million fewer neighbors and I find your avatar surprisingly appropriate to express my personal attitude.

a reply to: nenothtu

S&F. I'm book marking this and reading. So far it's a very good and well thought out thread. I'm going to read a bit more in depth on this and if I have anything to add I will later...

I'm with the poster that sees this as a very unrealistic number though... i will read more before i get critical however..