>UN: "30 billion could end world hunger forever, thats not even 1% of your yearly GDP, US and Europe!"
>US, Europe: "Nah lets rather spend hundreds times that money on war, technology and space travel."
You will STILL deny the existance of white privilege.
Dear fellow white people...
...its our fault that there is still hunger in the world. So lets stop being so ignorant and selfish and fix it.
Other urls found in this thread:
Explain how, won't they just reproduce and create more hungry niggers? Helping them actually hurts them, and us.
We fixed our shit, surviving both Islamic slavery and communism. Nobody helped us, and we expect the useless garbage to stop burning each other for witchcraft and fix their shit in turn.
just fucking nuke them and get rid of the burden
Quit lying faggot.
Got a source for that number? Seems awfully low since we already give billions in aid per year and they are still starving.
>UN: "30 billion could end world hunger forever
>forever
now I know this is bait
Do you know how to do basic math?
You cant turn a negative into a postive you fucking retard.
If you wanted to disperse food in the way you are describing you are talking about dismantling the financial system entirely and basically causing massive societal collapse.
Think of all the jobs that would be lost if every one had food given to them for free, these types of things are not morally justified, but moral justification doesn't solve material based issues.
This type of vapid virtue signalling is the epitome of why everyone hates liberals. I could literally go on for an entire hour just describing to you the effect and fallout of doing something like this.
You are really fucking dumb.
Shut the fuck up nigger. We give more than any other country on earth
I fucking love how alien the concept of personal responsibility is to leftists.
World hunger isnt a problem solved with money.
Food runs out. It needs to be paid again and again. You can actually see this on a micro level in real time with the USA welfare system. It offers better benefits per person (excluding healthcare) for food and housing than you will ever see in the African world. this is for two reasons.
>White people and a minority of minorities pay into the tax system a minority of whites and a majority of minorities use.
>They are American.
until welfare everywhere stops, we will need to let Africans fend partially for themselves.
I will admit the White man came and made them forget their cultures, but they were always niggers. The continent of Africa is truly without a doubt a crazy place.
Cost to end world hunger each day: $30 billion
How many days are there in a week?
A year?
A decade?
See where I'm getting at?
American aid to Israel since 1949: $121 billion
Cost to end world hunger: $30 billion
Hmm...
We solved starvation problems in so many countries. Look what happened. Suddenly nigger countries started booming population and flooding Europe. "Solving world hunger" is for faggot cucks that want to erradicate the white race.
Why would I want to spend money to feed niggers?
>nogs dying far away from me
>mfw
american doesn't understand that he's a mongrel who can't use billion correcty
>if you go to McDonald's with $30 billion, they'll give you 30 billion burgers
>military should work for free
That's not how money works. Besides, armies can actually do something with that money, while niggers will only multiply and make next year's world hunger cost ten times higher.
Fuck you, globocuck.
Weapons and space travel are epic. I hope all those little niggers die covered in flies.
> 1 post by this ID
SAGE
why should I spend $1.00 to feed my enemies?
>30 billion to end world hunger
For how long?
"Ending" world hunger does not end it. You cannot just give everyone food for a month and end world hunger, the problem will be exactly the same next month. Next year the problem will be worse.
Ending world hunger does not produce anything. In fact, it actively makes the problem worse. By ending world hunger, more children by those unable to afford having those children will be created, and those children will create more children by people who cannot afford having children.
The solution to world hunger is to cease all aid. Those that cannot support children or themselves will die off, while those that can will live. This is a net benefit for everyone that will be anything more than a leech.
Sweden send 700 .000.000 sek every year to help organisation.
no
IIRC 30 billion would end world hunger "forever" for about one year. Then it would cost exponentially more next year, because you just allowed an entire generation of 3rd world people reproduce for free, and 3rd world families like in Africa end up having 5-10 kids each. If anything after a few years the cost to feed this exponential population growth would start bankrupting nations.
Really, the nicest thing to do would be to stop feeding them and sending them food aid. Most of that gets confiscated by corrupt governments and warlords anyway, and all you're doing is allowing exponentially more and more people to exist in a perpetual state of permanent hunger. You're just allowing more suffering to exist while guilt tripping other people into wasting time and energy and resources on enabling the continuation of unsolvable, unending hunger.
>Our fault
>We're the only one's feeding Africa
What? Sage
>cost to feed generation 1 of starving niggers: 30 billion.
>cost to feed generation 2 of starving niggers: 150 billion.
>cost to feed generation 3 of starving niggers: 750 billion.
>cost to feed generation 4 of starving niggers: 3 Trillion and 750 billion.
>cost to feed generation 5 of starving niggers: 18 trillion and 750 billion.
>cost to feed generation 6 of starving niggers: 93 trillion and 750 billion...
on the speculation that we somehow manage to never run out of money.
Blacks on average produce 5 children per family. Blacks tend to produce MORE children when survival is perceived to be hard pressed. In other words, you are not solving anything. In fact, you are just tossing on more wood for the fire to burn. Why not throw yourself in while you're at it?
I'm pretty sure the countries in poverty collectively have $30 billion amongst them they can do it themselves, why does the rest of the world need to support those shit skins.
exactly 5 minutes
>COMPLETE
>GLOBAL
>DIVERSIFICATION
>implying someone really cared about hungry nig nogs.
Slide thread, just ignore and report. Don't be idiots
Whatever, you'd still accuse us of colonialism and 80% of that money would end up in the hands of dictators
It's just a dumb fucking idea, I'll keep my money you virtue signalling twat
...
It's not our job to feed you people. Figure your shit out ffs.
Oh look, this thread again.
>1 post by this id
bait.doc
US: nah, UN will just end up funneling the money to NGOs that sew political discord.
it would cost far less just to gas them all
work harder.jpeg
You are both retarded and utterly lacking in understanding why international aid is ultimately a terrible Fucking idea. The reasons most charities are shit on here is all money and tangible things that would normally go to the people always ends up in the respective governments hands, now these types of governments are sociopathic Fucking psychotic shits that would rather use that stuff for their respective empires of dirt then actually take care of their people in any way shape or form, so all you have been doing is funding these oppressive regimes rather then actually doing what you are intending to do, keep funding genocide you literal hitler.
No matter how much food is given to them niggers will ALWAYS breed themselves into another famine without adequate black on black crime and easy access abortion.
1. Monetize
2. Sell
3. Buy a lambo
True. African hunger is due to tgeir increasing population. Our abtibiotics vaccines and foregin aid alliwed that to happen. Maybe we should decrease their ppulation somehow?
World hunger is a fucking meme. Why is it our responsibility to fix famine in poorly-managed African countries? Those fucks hate us and want us dead, why do they deserve special treatment and free assistance to their failing state?
They also still somehow manage to have 800x more kids than us. The birth rate in some countries in Africa is >5 per couple.
World Hunger? Fucking bullshit scam.
>don't have money and live in poverty
>fuck and reproduce like rabbits
They deserve it.
lol, as if it's OUR responsibility to solve the problems that other countries have, no, they solve their own problems, we solve our own problems, they can neck themselves, we're building a wall.
>brazil
>liberals think that giving niggers 30 billion will suddenly teach them to farm(knowledge that is already literally free)
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.
The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
>Generation 1
>$30,000,000,000 to end world hunger
>Have 4 babies
>Generation 2
>$60,000,000,000 to end world hunger
>Have 4 babies
>Generation 3
>$120,000,000,000 to end world hunger
>Have 4 babies
>Generation 31
>32,212,254,720,000,000,000 To end world hunger
>Not enough resources left in the solar system to support the starving Africans.
And that is why, in less than 700 years. This plan would fall apart.
Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.
Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).
Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests.
youtube.com
time to post the sarah mclachlan song as we think about all those niggers dying from their own arrogance and incompetence
Hmmm... not sure if naturally superior White genes and culture count as a privilege, since privilege must be granted by a superior individual and genes and culture are simply innate properties.
I don't want kill them, but there are too many of them. They can't feed themselves.
literally not our fault your continent, nation, and people are shit tier.
But what about CO2 emissions? Wouldn't shipping all that food be bad for the environment?
BONUS QUESTION:
>what is the estimated worth of the Rothschild family?
Any argument you have ope', is now invalid
Why are white people expected to solve everyone's problems? We give the niggers food for how long? We build them schools, hospitals, teach them how to read and write, then rebels come and burn everything. The niggers aren't ready to be civilized. I say, let them burn.
>cost to end world hunger
This makes me very sad! I wish the parents of these children were more responsible and could literally STOP having 9 kids.
Feeding niggers to breed billions of more niggers we need to feed.
No thanks. Let them starve or AIDS or Ebola or anything other than feeding them.
Wasting money on blacks is a huge waste of shekels
>Islamic slavery
>slavery
BOY OH BOY. HAVING TO PAY AN EXTRA TAX AND HAVING ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF RIGHTS AS THE MUSLIMS MUST SURE BE A HARD LIFE.
Just over throw your shitty african dictator and open up the markets. Not that hard
How much to end the existence of niggers?
I don't see how it relates.
nevertheless 30 billion isn't even nearly enough. Transport and distribution would cost 30 biillion a day if we assume that food costs nothing - which is accurate in comparison.
>$30 Billion will end world hunger
>Depopulation will end world hunger
pick one
So how come you're not asking Saudi Arabia?
Besides as I am sure other people have pointed out, you are asking for a massive population swell, and how will you get enough money to feed the world then?
Why not spend $30 Billion for depopulation?
Send me your credit card number white boy, im hungry as fuck. If you don't i will brand you as a racist, hypocrite and a faggot
We could throw a hundred trillion dollars at africa and nothing would get fixed because warlords just steal all the shit.
Stop sendin money and help to that filth in general.
It would help a lot against overpopulation and we'd have a place to send our unwanted to.
The US and Europe raises in excess of $130 billion in Foreign aid every single year. Sometimes you cannot fix people who don't want to fix themselves.
Can you give me a non-emotion based reason why should non-african countries pay billions of their own hard earned money to feed lazy niggers?
there hasnt been a problem in the world that wasnt fixed with a lot of work.
niggers dont work.
they still got problems because of it.
/thread
sage goes into all orifices.
> our
it's the 3rd time I see this pic posted here ...
Cost of world hunger would keep going higher as we let them reproduce instead of starve
Again, dumb leftist. This hunger is insurmountable. I highly suggest that you take crash courses in Statistics, Economics and Politics instead of shitty Gender Studies and Preliminaries of Social Justice.
This thread again? saged
>white people wont fund africans to have 10 kids per woman, all out of our hard work
>white privileged
The cost to end world hunger never ends .
>$30 billion to end world hunger
no
The hunger is a by product of their mode of living, you can't fix it by throwing money at it, they'll still continue to have more kids than they can afford to look after.
[giggles in privilege]
Hes talking about islamic jihad that took place before the crusades
>american education
...
Theyd feed themselves n level off like south america....n wobt immigrate as much
third time? Is it your first day here?
What about balkans being turkish rape babies? Are we white now or not
If 30 billion could end world hunger world hunger would have ended. In one image: why "ending world hunger" is a fucking impossible and lunatic proposal
>give them 30 billion
>they just fuck more and doesn't build society
>"hey hold up, gib dat 60 bil to us whitey"
>repeat until the cost of ending world hunger is over 737 billion and leftists retards can't use this argument anymore
>he doesn't know about ottoman slave trade
murrican education
its also kind of strange that countries in which people hunger (somalia and sudan for example) can have 3% population growth every year for decades. so there definitely has always been and still is enough food in those countries.
my guess is, its the africans themselves that dont share the food and thus create hunger crises.
Based elevens have also noticed this? Nice.
Not sharing the food has always been one of the problems in crisis areas. Niggers are so selfish.
ending world hunger is free, actually.
just stop feeding the damn niggers so they die out and stop reproducing.
the world is overpopulated as it is already.
so you want to feed people who cannot feed themselves but can produce dozens of offspring who also cannot feed themselves, and somehow you think this will end hunger?
what's it like being a rocket scientist?