The world population must be reduced at all costs

we need freedom, molecular , atomic, anatomic, spiritual and mental freedom, not mass genocide, whats up with that ?????


no killing man, that for killers

im a lover


now talk

reply to post by JR MacBeth
Well, thank you JR! I appreciate your kind words and I usually try to keep it short and sweet for the fact that saying too much is like laying out a smorgasboard. They're gonna devour it. Have a good day!

reply to post by unityemissions


hate to beat a dead horse but hemp oil could help us solve alot of our energy/consumer needs but atleast in america we cant use this due to it being related to pot and in our governments mind pot=bad so by default hemp= bad but it seems like we could at least try it out and seee how it works just my opinion but by the time oils gone we will have other options either go back to dirty coal, nuclear power(which scares alota people for good or bad)wind,hydrogen solar etc each on there own cant do it but if we add them all up it can atleast give us a chance

reply to post by g146541


I can fit 10 people on a barren floating ice sheet and they will all have ample space. Does that mean that they will all survive just fine because they have space on the ice sheet?

It's all about the quality and the type of living you plan on doing. If we all want to keep consuming like we currently do then we are probably over populated. If we can change our evil ways and simplify life then we probably are just fine.

reply to post by KilrathiLG


We can do better than hemp oil with algae oil. The government doesn't view pot as evil, that's just the public conditioning in progress. The oligarchy knows how useful hemp and marijuana is. They know it opens up people's minds so that they're not as easily programmed into the fear conditioning. They know that it would revolutionize the textile & paper industry, while likely bankrupting the pharmaceutical industry. It's about the people in power keeping their positions of influence is all.

The energy crisis is only part of the equation to our problems. We would also have to greatly reduce our consumption of meat. One way or another, this is going to happen soon, else many of us will be offed! The amount of food grain and water needed to supply us with our meat is absurd and the practice is highly unethical.

The above poster has it correct. We can keep 7 billion souls and perhaps even double the number, but in order for us to have a decent way of life, we need to get with changing our lifestyles now! I actually hold the idea that this is what's behind the collapse of western civilization as we know it. It seems that we're all being bankrupted to lose our ability to deplete the remaining resources. That's my take on it, at least.

The OP has probably never traveled the world. It's amazing how someone can arrive to such grandiose conclusions by sitting in an armchair in the confinements of luxury and shelter. If you want to reduce the world population start with yourself.

reply to post by whoshotJR


Exactly. All these arguments about enough space are meaningless. What is important is quantity and usability of resources. There are cities and countries with really high population density and a high standard of living - space is not important!

What we need to address is transparency. The elites are withholding knowledge, this is what's keeping the populace down. There's too much "deeming what the public should know".

I want a revolution where we the common people completely over run these rich people hiding in their mansions. Take everything from them and redistribute it. I'm not so much talking money as i'm talking knowledge! This even need be done for the world governments, take all of the knowledge that is being hoarded.

Once we get away from the sick people who have a desire to rule over others, this worlds problems will relieve.

reply to post by g146541
This is a new one... confuse me into being scared. 1.The world population must be reduced at all costs say the elite.2. they are spot on. 3. everyone can fit into Australia. 4. everything is just fine as is. - Wake me up when you've made up your mind.

reply to post by Amagnon


Another point is that the population growth which I agree is exponential, is that it is directly tied to an energy source (oil) which is not growing.

We only have the growth we do, because we had the energy to support it. We are about to hit a brick wall of hard physical limits, which is to say peak oil.

When it becomes unfeasible to extract more oil, we will then see a population crash as the infrastructure we have built up over the last 100 years has been driven by and propped up by easy access to oil.

reply to post by TeeZedem


"Peak Oil" is pure BS, created by our masters to manipulate us into thinking for their benefit. Oil is cheap, abundant and found practically everywhere.

Of course, you would not be the only one who connected the dots, and realized the implications of "peak oil", on the population issue. We should be careful however. If our masters are successful, "peak oil" has the power to morph into many other nasty things.

Take our "carbon footprint". Here Peak Oil meets the lie of Global Warming. In the developed countries, the footprint is "too big". Therefore, it will be cut, whether your lifestyle is trashed or not. The real reason has nothing to do with what they say of course. If our lifestyle is cut, it's simply because our masters have declared it so. (And, from their perspective, their slaves have been getting a bit fat and lazy, not to mention uppity!)

As our masters continue to literally tell us what to believe, and what not to believe, they pretty much control 99% of the conversation. We only talk about what they have deemed fit.

So what if we wanted to actually put their miserable enslaving mythology aside, and talk about facts instead? Well, they have the ability to yell much louder, they own the media after all, and they derive tremendous control through their "oil matrix", which works it's way into just about everything.

For those who use "their" terms, the first step is to stop using the term "fossil fuel". Oil is almost entirely ABIOTIC. Google it, for laughs if nothing else, or to poke holes in it!

And then there's the Gulf Oil "spill" (volcano). Apparently, there's an incredible amount of oil down there! Not sure it's enough to shift a powerful paradigm that took decades to inculcate in the sheeple, but it could be a chink in the armor at least.

Well, I knew someone would bring "peak oil" up eventually in this thread. No, it's not a good excuse to kill billions either, seeing as how it's pure fiction.

JR

[edit on 8-7-2010 by JR MacBeth]

Many of you don't seem to understand the entirety or the science of overpopulation, carrying capacity, and human ecological footprint.

Here are some links with good info and breakdowns of overpopulation:

What is Carrying Capacity?

Human Overpopulation

World Food and Human Population Growth

Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

The growing world population

Mankind using Earth's resources faster than replenished

The science is clear- human population is EXPLODING exponentially. In relatively recent history it took hundreds/thousands of years for human population to double. Now it's taking less than 35 YEARS for human population to double! And not only that but it's doubling from billions to billions. We are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet- agriculturally, ecologically, economically and even despoiling clean air/water.

Here is a graphic showing global human footprint in red:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ddf5665ba125.jpg[/atsimg]

A lot of you seem to be rabidly against notions of human overpopulation not with any hard scientific support but simply a weakly supported moral tirade against it. The bottom line is that we are grossly overpopulating the Earth with only our agricultural technology and time extending the process. YES IT SUCKS! YES IT'S NOT EASY TO SOLVE! But like global warming, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S NOT HAPPENING. Just because you don't want to deal with these massive and very real problems doesn't mean it's all a big hoax or conspiracy against you. It's time to get real, we share the same trap as the elites who rule over us, except they get a much cushier/happier ride as the world collapses. Their power/wealth over us is an entirely SEPARATE issue from the ecological issues we ALL face and we are ALL partially responsible for...

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Many of you don't seem to understand the entirety or the science of overpopulation...

The science is clear- human population is EXPLODING exponentially...

We are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet- agriculturally, ecologically, economically and even despoiling clean air/water...

A lot of you seem to be rabidly against notions of human overpopulation not with any hard scientific support but simply a weakly supported moral tirade against it...

...YES IT SUCKS! YES IT'S NOT EASY TO SOLVE! But like global warming, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S NOT HAPPENING. Just because you don't want to deal with these massive and very real problems doesn't mean it's all a big hoax or conspiracy against you. It's time to get real...

Yes, it is time to get real, but first, I would say to all who have seen the scary "red" human (over?) population map, and read NoHierarchy's energetic post...RELAX.

The sky is NOT falling, at least not in the way you imagine.

While it's difficult to overcome a couple of generations of our master's programming, I'm living proof that it's not entirely impossible. It's always going to be hard to dislodge that which has become an established "fact" in our paradigms. But obviously, there are a lot of people in this predicament.

First, it would be my recommendation to approach these matters with perhaps just a bit more humility. The NoHierarchy statement is bold, it would be people probably much like me, who "don't seem to understand the entirety or the science of overpopulation."

Actually, on second thought, it would probably be just about all of us who understands anything in it's "entirety". But OK, you provided some links, and your conclusion is that...

The science is clear- human population is EXPLODING exponentially...

What I'm about to share next is probably going to require a pretty healthy dose of the recommended humility, but perhaps our readers here can try and suppress the programmed reaction, and if not, at least make note of it.

Human populations are actually falling, worldwide, and have been, for decades.

Reactions anyone? OK, now a good percentage at this point can probably go ahead and take your blue pill, and then go back to your televisions for further instructions. As for the rest, are you sure you want the red pill?

The funny thing is, probably most people, regardless of how they feel about population issues, might read my shocking statement above, and naturally begin thinking that such an idea flies in the face of everything we "know"...

What DO we know?

Well, first off, we know that population is increasing, year after year. In our lifetimes, most of us have seen billions added, if not the entire "doubling" usually mentioned, if we're old enough. This alone should convince us that NoHierarchy must be right!

Or should it? What other common perception might we have, that might seem to counter this?

Depending upon where we live, we may also recognize that things today are not what they once were. If you live in Europe for example, you should already be well-aware that your native populations are in severe decline, and that the demographics are shifting rapidly as well. In Germany, or France, or Italy, or the UK, take your pick. Yes, the populations may have gone "up", but what was it due TO? Could something like "immigration" have been part of it perhaps? Ask an older French citizen about the number of Muslims in the country today, versus just 30 years ago.

And speaking of "old" people, regardless of their fond memories, aren't there a lot more of them today? Hmmm. "What if" the "aging" of the population had something to do with the population "increase" we speak of as well? In other words, if "life-expectancy" had risen, perhaps significantly, over the period of time from which we draw most of our experience, wouldn't that have the effect of pushing up populations, at an increasing rate, at least consistent with the rate of the simultaneous increase in life-expectancy?

This last one is interesting to think about. "If" for example, global life-expectancy rose from an average of 45 years, fifty years ago, to let's say 60 years today, how long would it take for us to climb another 15 years in life-expectancy? How many years will it take to go from age 60, to 75? Oh, sure, probably not too long...OK, how about from 75, to 90 then...?

I think anyone can see that there is a practical limit here, even assuming some technology thrown in for the sake of argument. What this means is that "eventually", the "gains" in population growth we we seem to have made, can actually start to peter-out, especially when you consider this large "age-related" component. There is no question there is an upper-limit here, that must exert a downward pressure to the rate of increase. And so, how far in the future will it be before we see this "downward" pressure, due to natural age limitations, being exerted??

It's not in the future, it's already here. Interestingly, we already seem to hold this contrary "truth" in yet another compartment of our collective consciousness. Here's an example: Most of us know that in the US, "Social Security" must collapse, due to the aging population. In health care systems around the developed world, the old people are becoming a serious burden. Ah, just another "fact" we know, right?

But how many of us realize that this "fact" already has implications, that might overshadow the first "fact" we put faith in, that of the "exponential" or exploding population?

How exactly can a population "age", if it is in exponential growth? Such a thing actually calls for the very opposite, we "should" see younger, and younger populations, should we not?

Yes, I know, it's all too complicated. And yet, this is just the tip of the iceberg when wading into these waters.

Perhaps I'll post again, continuing the thought. Oh yes, and perhaps we should think about third-party sources concerning these matters, even if "they" have dictated most of what reaches our ears, maybe they'll slip-up, and show a card or two...




[edit on 6-8-2010 by JR MacBeth]

How about steralising a generation??? Surely unwanted / unplanned pregnancies has to be the main factor in overpopulation??? No-one under the age of 18 or maybe 21 allowed to have kids and if they do must be aborted....Culling all the muderers and lifers in every prison.... dunno if this would have much of an effect but it`s a start.


i will agree there is enough space on this planet for a lot more people but the fact is a lot is also unhabitable and people would rather stay in there own country...

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Continuing my thoughts. Seems like so many components, variables in all this.

How about FERTILITY. Any of the ladies out there try and conceive, after perhaps decades on the pill? No worries, you've got plenty of company!

According to the United Nations Population Division, this issue of fertility seems to be troublesome. Obviously, if it could just be ignored, they wouldn't feel like it had to be mentioned at all.

Most of us are probably not going to be too surprised to learn that the UN is largely in favor of population control, certainly birth control for everyone on the planet is one of their concerns, with wide abortion availability also being one they are in favor of, although that one is a bit more controversial and not all nations can implement measures that sometimes go too much against their cultures or religions.

So anyway, let's see what this biased organization has to contribute to this "overpopulation" discussion. No doubt, the sky is falling, too many people, etc...

Apparently, the UN is alarmed that there are 65 nations in the world that suffer from such poor fertility, that the survival of their populations are in danger as a result. Oh yes, probably just demographics, it's just the silly white westerners, no doubt the brown masses have no problem when it comes to fertility!

Wrong, at least according to the "left-hand" of the UN, who informs us that 22 of the 65 nations are from less-developed nations.

It gets worse. They have various projections of course, as one would expect. It looks as if things are actually getting worse, not better, not stabilizing either! Fertility decline is projected to hit 75% of Third World nations by 2050. The term they use when speaking of these increasing number of nations, they say they will experience "below replacement levels" in fertility.

How can this left-hand, square with what the right hand is doing? It sounds as if this issue of "fertility" might be rather important. Sure, the aging population is important too. But considering their "global" treatment of the issue, one begins to suspect that simplistic "demographics" may not answer much at all.

Well, I personally wonder what some of the more official "projections" might be after all this.

Well, well. Another slip perhaps? The UNPD just can't be this incompetent!

It looks like global population is supposed to "peak" in 2040? At only 7.8 billion people? What drugs are these people on?

Whatever drugs they happen to be smoking, they may in fact be taking into account many more of the literally hundreds of factors involved when treating of this very complicated issue, than the average person, steeped in propaganda since birth. Ah, but they're the UN, who can trust them?

I would venture to say that the UN projection to 2100 is even more insane.

Really?? The world's population will be less than 5 billion in 90 years? Can't be!! Well, we're supposed to be in "exponential" population growth!

Like "peak oil", perhaps "peak people" will be debunked as well. But there is something to this, in my opinion.

For those who find this all a bit hard to swallow, recall that it was the red pill I offered.

Interestingly, this seems to be one of those issues that is indeed a chink in our master's armor. It's sort of "counter-intuitive". The complexity of it all, the seemingly infinite variables concerning populations, all seem to favor nothing but continued confusion.

And yet, amongst the many labels and subcategories, we do indeed find interesting material, as with the "fertility" issue I shared above. No, it shouldn't be seen in a vacuum, that would not be my point. The point is, this many-headed beast even confuses the masters, and the propaganda artists they employee. No, they can't keep it all straight, and the minute one studies one aspect in detail, and the experts make their announcements, one can step back, and see other parts of the lie unraveling.

But it is a very powerful lie after all. Certainly, for those who have been reading some of what has been posted in this thread, we see that something IS working. There are people who favor "depopulation". No, it makes sense only if you buy into the Malthusian propaganda. But, it is working.

I suspect that when the time comes, many will line up behind our masters, when they decide, yet again, which large segment of the population must die. They will have their supporters. But if we actually look at previous, successful "depopulations" that they have already meted out upon us, we might well pause.

Because our masters did NOT choose to kill off the ones we all want dead. In the links provided by NoHierrachy, you will see the usual photos, the dark people, the crowded masses of India, always in the propagandist's arsenal. But in fact, they chose to butcher Europe instead. Not exclusively, no, but perhaps we should say, "surprisingly".

But for those who realize that our masters have embarked on a "re-engineering" of the population, it all makes perfect sense. What could their goal possibly be, as one population decreases, while another is allowed to increase? Well, it is generally accepted amongst the reviled "conspiracy" crowd, that they are in the middle of creating a "slave" population.

Another way to look at it is that our masters, who own the plantation, do in fact require slaves. However, the slaves need to be "fit" for their role you might say. Certain characteristics should be emphasized, while less desirable traits should be extinguished. Further, there really is no rational "need" for billions of slaves either. "Enough" might be only 50 million, perhaps.

Such a thing could be the "history behind the history" that we think we know. World Wars. Famine. Migrations of "boat people". Immigration laws.

And then there's Education. School, the place we all learned the facts. The fact of "overpopulation". The "fact" of "fossil fuel". And many other fanciful things, all taught to us not merely for our entertainment, but for the eventual enslavement of our children and grandchildren.

Sadly, most of us do in fact hold out our arms for the masters, as the chains are fastened. Some may even help the masters secure those chains upon their fellows, although most will do so unwittingly.

Open your eyes..THINK. If "they" told you, you can bet it was a lie.

A culling is definitely in order!

First cull the heads of most states and corporations.

After that there should be more than adequate resources for the rest of the world.

Also, if you need a little free space to feel "normal", please come to Canada, we have space, and love company.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
What I'm about to share next is probably going to require a pretty healthy dose of the recommended humility, but perhaps our readers here can try and suppress the programmed reaction, and if not, at least make note of it.

Human populations are actually falling, worldwide, and have been, for decades.

Reactions anyone? OK, now a good percentage at this point can probably go ahead and take your blue pill, and then go back to your televisions for further instructions. As for the rest, are you sure you want the red pill?

Actually that's WRONG. Yes some specific populations birth rates are very stabilized, or in the case of say Germany, declining. However, the OVERALL picture is what counts. In the OVERALL picture, human population is ALREADY unsustainable and is growing by incredible leaps and bounds. Yes there is some talk of population POSSIBLY leveling out over the next decades/centuries. But exact numbers are difficult to predict and are by no means definite. We could level out at 9 billion... or we may level out at 20 billion... either way that's TOO MANY PEOPLE for the planet to support sustainably. Also... just because the EXPONENTIAL RATE of population growth might be SLOWING, does not by ANY means constitute a decrease in populations. We are still VERY MUCH growing in population as a species. There is a big difference between population decrease and a slowing of the exponential rate of increase. Simply turning 2nd/3rd world countries into the first-world to slow population growth is ABSOLUTELY NOT a solution. If the entire world lived/consumed as the 1st world does... we'd literally need 4 more Earths to sustain us. Do you see 4 more Earths lying around that we can utilize to support such a population? And let's say we did! Could we even logistically pull that off? And even if we could figure out the logistics of using 5 Earths to support billions of people living the same 1st world standard of living... would we really STOP reproducing or would the new influx of surplus resources spurn another population explosion? Those are largely rhetorical questions, and all unrealistic considering the reality we actually face.

I took the red pill a long time ago, and it won me few friends. Most people do not want the truth, the truth of our world is huge, lumbering, complex, and scary. Overpopulation, global warming, the inherent/perpetually tyrannical nature of our governments/markets (no matter how we tweak them), all of these thing scare people and everybody has their own way of dealing with it. I chose to deal with reality head-on, no matter where it leads me. On the mountain of truth you never climb in vain, so it's said, and I set out to climb that mountain.

No offense, JR, but it just seems like your rebuttals contain a lot of wordy hot-air that has been repeated over and over in this thread. You seem to replace reality and scientific facts with vague counter-arguments, science taken out of context/scope, and notions of a giant conspiracy to teach us that humans are hurting the planet when we're really not. But the reality is UNDENIABLE, humans are rapidly destroying the biosphere. This INCLUDES overpopulation and all of its consequences, it INCLUDES the use of pollutive fossil fuels, it INCLUDES large-scale/totalitarian agriculture, it INCLUDES the way we make our livings and the things we buy/consume. It's a hard pill to swallow I know, and it's not easy to escape this "Matrix" (if we are to continue the reference)... but it still exists and we cannot cover it up and pretend everything's alright by obfuscating the facts with seemingly equally weighted facts (when they're actually light as a feather) and moral indignation. The moral/ethical crime of our time is not that we recognize the problems humans are causing but that there is a concentrated effort to DENY them and continue them at all costs. Humility comes not from denying our destructive role (that's absolute Orwellian double-think) but to accept that we are all, to some degree, responsible for the destruction of ecosystems, it is humble to know that we DEPEND on other lifeforms and the ecosystems they compose for our VERY SURVIVAL and NOT the other way around. We are kicking the supports out from under hundreds of thousands of other species and as a result OUR species, and when those supports are gone, god help us find any hope for our future.

We are facing one of the Earth's few mass extinction events, it is one of the fastest, and it is caused by US:

www.amnh.org...

serendip.brynmawr.edu...

I urge you to read all of my links and consider the undeniable facts/realities within. Overpopulation is not a game, it's complex and not cleanly distributed, but it's very very real and is one of the ROOTS of our world problems (including tyranny itself).

reply to post by NoHierarchy

...seems like your rebuttals contain a lot of wordy hot-air that has been repeated over and over in this thread.

Really? I would have rather thought that my introduction of the adversarial witness, the United Nations (!), as hardly "repeated" often. I must have missed it in this thread, getting long. Is the UN full of "hot-air"? I presented their assertions...and frankly you have not rebutted them.

You seem to replace reality and scientific facts with vague counter-arguments, science taken out of context/scope, and notions of a giant conspiracy to teach us that humans are hurting the planet when we're really not.

Let's not mix in the "conspiracy" just yet! If the UN has taken the science out of context, fine. Perhaps their projections are all hog-wash, and your mere opinions trump their millions of dollars in multi-faceted research. Again, fine. But, I thought perhaps a reader out there might enjoy getting the other perspective nonetheless.

But the reality is UNDENIABLE, humans are rapidly destroying the biosphere...

Perhaps humans are destroying the biosphere. Yes, let's entertain the widely held notion, because obviously there is some truth to it.

Tell me "how many" humans, or rather, what maximum allowable population, will change this situation? To be sure, our masters have given this some thought, and some of the figures we encounter are incredible, to the tune of 90% population reductions.

But let's stop and think about it. Is this really just an issue of "how many", or could it be more of a "qualitative" predicament here? After all, the problem is really HUMANS, and we could go further, and speculate that the particular humans likely to cause most of the damage, will continue to do so, even if they get their wish, and reduce the world to a manageable slave population.

Perhaps it's time to bring in the "conspiracy" again. You see, the people who are behind the ideas you accept so completely, are the same ones raping the planet like there's no tomorrow. May I humbly suggest that just ONE of the powerful elite scum, that runs the world, is fully capable of damaging the planet a million times more than the oh-so-despised simple African. And yet, who do you imagine is being targeted? Simple logic really.

This INCLUDES overpopulation and all of its consequences, it INCLUDES the use of pollutive fossil fuels...

You need to study-up on this one. No such thing really, the notion of "fossil fuels" may be another "fact" in the popular mythology, but when you start looking into real science, the evidence is all on the side of an abiotic origin. The only reason the "fossil" myth is perpetuated is because OIL is central to our master's continuing control over the planet. When you use "their" term, you contribute to their fraudulent paradigm. And if you worry about how "polluting" it might be, then you should really get concerned when you discover that there is no end in sight to this very plentiful commodity. (Hint: "Peak Oil" is yet another lie.)

It's a hard pill to swallow I know, and it's not easy to escape this "Matrix" (if we are to continue the reference)... but it still exists and we cannot cover it up and pretend everything's alright by obfuscating the facts with seemingly equally weighted facts (when they're actually light as a feather) and moral indignation...

Why would the United Nations Population Division "obfuscate" facts, or "over"-weight facts (such as the almost catastrophic global fertility decline)? Because it doesn't square with your old-school thinking on the matter? Our masters continue to tweek the Plan, and often the propaganda we swallowed in our school years, really doesn't keep up with their evolving schemes.

Interesting. The second time you have sneered at "moral indignation", as if such a thing simply does not apply to the wholesale eradication of populations. Well, I'm not a religionist, perhaps some might be rather indignant if they found out that billions needed to die, for whatever reason.

And yet, there is a greater context here that does indeed cry out "to heaven", so-to-speak. Namely, because the whole damn thing is a fraud, perpetrated by our blood-thirsty masters, aided and abetted by a seemingly endless crowd that nods to their every whim.

Because they're building their "utopia" while laughing at the "green" religionists who unwittingly do their bidding, digging their own graves. Which might be fine, if it could ONLY be their own graves, and they left the rest of us alone.

Because our masters are going to turn the whole world into a plantation of misery, on which our children, and grandchildren will toil, perhaps for a very long time (if Massa has his way).

The moral/ethical crime of our time is not that we recognize the problems humans are causing but that there is a concentrated effort to DENY them and continue them at all costs.

No offense here NoHeir, but this "concentrated effort" you mention, to "deny" the problems humans are causing "at all costs", doesn't sound real plausible.

You know, even conspiracy theorists have reasons "why" people do the things they do. In my example, I posit that "our masters" are building a global "plantation". Why would anyone "deny at all cost" that humans are causing problems? Who does that?

Really, you should humbly consider "which" humans exactly are causing most of the trouble here. (Hint: Perhaps it's not the dark hordes of the Indian subcontinent..)

Humility comes not from denying our destructive role (that's absolute Orwellian double-think) but to accept that we are all, to some degree, responsible for the destruction of ecosystems

Fine. Humans are quite nasty. Solution? "Kill billions!"

WRONG. Solution? How about, "Kill MASSA" instead? Possible? Perhaps not. But, let's at least get the innocent victims out of the cross-hairs, and focus on the real, UNDENIABLE criminals, those who OWN the entire earth, and are quite obviously doing exactly what they please with it.

JR

reply to post by stealthyaroura

people who have now settled in England who are not white
like to have as many children as they can pop out regardless
whether they can support them themselves or not.

Oh right... so you have gone around the whole country checking on all the evil non whites to see how many children they have and if they can support themselves??

Did the government pay you to do this survey? Or was it just something you read in the daily Star?

where us white original English people have on average
2 or 3 kids

Oh right... you mean like this lovely White family...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

yes i know its possibly the worst written unstructured
piece of bad grammar etc but i cant seem to get the rite words
without sounding like a racist bigot.

Well i wont call you a racist bigot because i don’t know you well enough to make that statement... However, what you just said would not be out of place at a BNP conference....


Seriously... how do you expect people to take what you just said???

reply to post by NoHierarchy


I agree with you. This world is over populated. I get pissed when women say I want 1o kids. I am like so who is going to feed these kids and take care of them? People like that are the ones who cause this world to be over populated. I swear it also seems that the world men to women ratio is 7 to 2. There seems to be more men than women well i notice this in my area.