Overpopulation: too damned many humans


Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by Michael » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:24 am

Yes, you can really feel the congestion here in the UK.
No matter where you go and what your trying to do, theres a queue.

I don't think you can even die here without getting in a queue.

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Other Invaders

Post by Will Williams » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:44 am

Jjack wrote:[S]ometimes you guys seem to be our last hope...
Not so much hope unless concerned guys like you join with us. https://natall.com/about/what-is-the-national-alliance/


Too Many Humans: Overpopulation Is Bad for People and the Planet
In the developing world, where high fertility rates impede efforts to reduce poverty and prevent environmental degradation, reproductive choice can be a game changer.
By Robert Walker / Population Institute August 4, 2015


The ability to space or prevent a pregnancy can make all the difference in the world to girls and women. That does not require much explanation. Reproductive choice, however, is also a potential game changer for developing countries. That’s because rapid population growth is a challenge multiplier that can impede efforts to reduce poverty, alleviate hunger, boost educational attainment, manage water scarcity, improve basic services, and prevent environmental degradation.

Thanks to the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a great deal of progress has been made in improving lives in the developing world over the past 15 years. Substantial gains have been made in alleviating poverty, reducing the incidence of hunger and malnutrition, and improving conditions for the poorest of the poor. By far, however, the biggest gains have been made in countries with relatively low fertility rates. In countries where fertility rates remain very high, progress has been slow and, in a few cases, nonexistent.

Last month, the Population Institute released a first of its kind report titled, “Demographic Vulnerability: Where population growth poses the greatest challenges.” The report identifies and ranks the 20 developing nations facing the greatest demographic challenges with respect to hunger, poverty, water, environment and political instability. South Sudan topped our list of the most vulnerable. The others in the top ten include Somalia, Niger, Burundi, Eritrea, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Sudan...
More here: http://www.alternet.org/environment/too ... and-planet


Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by adolf512 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:54 am

Honestly i actually think killing off humans is needed to save the planet, humans lack natural predators and is the only species that actually needs to be hunted(could provide meat). We simply need more war and death to save the planet, it will also be needed to kill of the weak humans in favour of the stronger ones.
The amount of species getting extinct will only accelerate as the nonwhites become more and more numerous.
Ragnar Redbeard wrote:Death and destruction are necessary to the health of the world, and therefore as natural, and lovable, as birth and life. Only priests and born cowards moan and weep over dying. Brave men face it with approving nonchalance.

Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:06 pm

Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by Jjack » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:39 pm

Too damned many untermenschen... and stupid too.

User avatar
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 5:39 pm

Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by RetiredAndLivingOnAltairIV » Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:09 pm

America's Future: March of the Mystery Meat


User avatar
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:23 pm
Location: South Carolina upstate

Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by PhuBai68 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:23 am

Jjack wrote:Too damned many untermenschen... and stupid too.
That's for sure.
I saw a trolling thread over on the Stormfront board about "how much smarter Orientals and Indians are" compared to Europeans.
I mentioned in the mod forum "imagine where America's standing would be if we didn't have all the blacks and browns figured into our average?".
I replied to the post that the reason Indians seem to be so smart being software engineers and spelling bee winners is the very best and brightest booked out of India to western nations.

You want to experience "over population" try living in New Jersey.
New Jersey tops the list as having the most densely populated state at 1,210 persons per square mile. Population (2015) 8,958,013 of which 68.6% white, 13.7% African-American, 0.3% Native American, 8.3% Asian American.
It's not diversity, it's displacement.

User avatar
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 5:39 pm

Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by RetiredAndLivingOnAltairIV » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:45 pm

I replied to the post that the reason Indians seem to be so smart being software engineers and spelling bee winners is the very best and brightest booked out of India to western nations.
And this disparity may only get worse. Consider: between China and India there are some two billion people. By comparison, the USA has a little over 300 million. So these two giant non-white countries have around seven times our population. But wait. America actually has only around 225 million whites, due to our large groid and mestizo population, so China and India combined have around eight times as many people as we have whites. Now, if for every three skilled white engineers America produces China and India produce only two combined, they will, overtime, still surpass us because they have eight times our white population. We may have superior technical creativity, but they, even with their not-quite-as-good creativity will make up for it in sheer output of second-rate engineers.

A reasonable analogy to this is the famous Battle of Kursk, when superior Third Reich panzer tanks went up against technically-inferior but numerically-superior Russian T-34 tanks. The Russians simply wore down and then overwhelmed the more advanced Germans. And that's the fate of the white world, if we don't stop the brown hordes: by sheer force of numbers they will become the inheritors of this planet. Inferior to us? Won't matter. They'll slaughter us anyway by simply overwhelming us, like they're doing now as their seething brown hordes move up from Central America - a foretaste of a much greater flood of Chinese and Indians across the globe. Even now the Chinks are invading Africa, and are taking over where the white man left off.

We're headed for a global-wide police state ruled from a Beijing/New Delhi nexus of power.


Superior German Tank Knocked Out By Inferior But Numerically-Superior Russian Tanks - "Battle of Kursk"
China Has Plans For The World - And It Doesn't Include The White Man


User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by Jim Mathias » Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:57 am

RetiredAndLivingOnAltairIV wrote:Even now the Chinks are invading Africa, and are taking over where the white man left off.

[/quote]They'd have to tame Africa's tribes, or wipe them out. If they try to tame them, they'll be re-learning what we did over a century ago. Best of luck to them!
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by Will Williams » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:41 pm

Afrophobia :o


Why European elites are worrying about African babies.

Ross Douthat
By Ross Douthat
Opinion Columnist

Oct. 20, 2018
A man from Nigeria held his six month old baby, en route to Italy after being rescued while attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea in 2017.CreditCreditEmilio Morenatti/Associated Press
Emmanuel Macron, the youthful and ambitious president of the French, likes to talk about African birthrates. In the summer of 2017, he answered a question about why there couldn’t be a Marshall Plan for Africa by calling the continent’s problems “civilizational,” and lamenting that African countries “have seven or eight children per woman.”

This was attacked by some as racist, defended by others as hardheaded realism about development economics. Macron obviously felt comfortable with what he’d said, because he returned to the idea last month at a Gates Foundation conference. (Bill Gates himself has also been talking a lot lately about population control and development in Africa.) “I always say,” Macron told the assembled do-gooders, “‘present me the woman who decided, being perfectly educated, to have seven, eight or nine children.’”

This time there was a specifically female response: A Catholic University of America professor, Catherine Pakaluk, posted a photo of six of her eight children under the Twitter hashtag #postcardsforMacron, and soon there was a flood of female Ph.Ds posting pictures of their broods.

As a pro-natalist, I am in full sympathy with the Macron-tweaking mothers, but as a descriptive matter the French president is basically correct. It’s a law of modern Western and East Asian history (we’ll call it Macron’s Law hereafter) that with wealth and education birthrates fall — and fall, and fall. The existence of occasional exceptions only highlights how exceptional they are.

This plunge has happened without population-control interventions as well as with them, and because Western-supported population control efforts in the developing world tended to be inhumane and not-so-mildly racist, over the last couple of decades they have fallen somewhat out of fashion, with Gatesian philanthropists and politicians alike.

So why are they creeping back into the discussion? For three reasons: Because African birthrates haven’t slowed as fast as Western experts once expected, because European demographics are following Macron’s Law toward the grave, and because European leaders are no longer nearly so optimistic about assimilating immigrants as even a few short years ago.

In 2004, the U.N. projected that Africa’s population would level off by 2100 around two billion. Today it projects that it will reach 4.5 billion instead. This change in the expected trend is more likely a result of sluggish economic growth than proof of an African exception to Macron’s Law — though it holds open the possibility that Africa could be such an exception. But whatever the explanation, by century’s end two in five human beings could be African.

This trend would have revived a certain kind of population-bomb anxiety no matter what, but the anxiety in Europe is a little more specific than that — because over the same period, Europe’s population is likely to drop by about one hundred million. (Western Europe’s leaders are a vanguard here: Neither Macron nor Angela Merkel nor Theresa May have any biological children.) In the late 1990s Europe and Africa had about the same population; a hundred years later there could be seven Africans for every European. And the experience of recent refugee crises has demonstrated to European leaders both how easily populations can move northward, and how much harder assimilation may be than they once hoped.

So Macron is not likely to be alone in his fixation on large African families. An Afrophobia that a decade ago was confined to white-identitarians is likely to become an obsession of Europe’s technocratic center as well as its nationalist parties. The fixation will be genteel and diplomatic and couched in the language of development but the upshot will be clear: We must find a way to convince African women to stop having so many babies.

[Sterilization in exchange for foreign aid on our terms?]

However, in addition to being cruel, past population control campaigns were often ineffective, so it’s likely that Macron and his successors will mostly fail in their anti-natal efforts. And even the thing that might lead to the falling birthrate they desire, rapid African economic growth, might also accelerate migration in the short term — because poor people who suddenly get richer also gain the means and opportunity to move to somewhere richer still.

Which is why anyone who hopes for something other than destabilization and disaster from the Eurafrican encounter should hope for a countervailing trend, in which Europeans themselves begin to have more children. This would not forestall the near-inevitable northward migration, but it would make it easier to assimilate immigrants once they arrived — European economies would be stronger, ethnic polarization would not fall so dramatically along generational lines, and in politics youthful optimism and ambition might help counteract the fear and pessimism of white Europeans growing old alone.

Of course government efforts to raise the Western birthrate, France’s included, have been no more obviously successful than Western-sponsored efforts to cut birthrates elsewhere in the world.

But focusing on European fertility has at least one moral advantage over Macron’s finger-wagging at African babymaking: It’s the part of the future that Europeans actually deserve to control.
Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/opin ... rates.html

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Overpopulation: too damned many humans

Post by Will Williams » Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:33 pm

90% of Ocean Plastic Disaster
Caused by Third World Pollution

90 PERCENT of the plastic pollution in the world’s oceans — a disaster which threatens the entire earth’s eco-system — comes from the Third World, and specifically China, India, and Africa, according to a major study of pollution sources carried out by the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ in Germany.

The study, titled “Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea,” was prepared by two experts employed at the UFZ (which is funded by the German government as is its official advisor on environmental matters.

The report revealed that every year, “millions of tons of plastic debris ends up in the sea — a global environmental problem with unforeseeable ecological consequences.”

The paper went on to say that the “path taken by plastic to reach the sea must be elucidated before it will be possible to reduce the volume of plastic input,” but there has to date “only little information available on this. It has now been followed up by an interdisciplinary research team who were able to show that plastic debris is primarily carried into the sea by large rivers.”

In the meantime, minute plastic particles can be found in the water in virtually every sea and river. “This constitutes a serious and growing global environmental problem.

There are enormous quantities of input each year and plastic weathers only very slowly. Marine life can be harmed by the tiny plastic particles floating in the water. One example of how this happens is when fish, seabirds or marine mammals mistake the particles for food and consume them, the paper continued.

“It is still impossible to foresee the ecological consequences of this. One thing is certain, however: this situation cannot continue,” says Dr. Christian Schmidt, a hydrogeologist at the UFZ. “But as it is impossible to clean up the plastic debris that is already in the oceans, we must take precautions and reduce the input of plastic quickly and efficiently.”

However, in order to take practical measures to reduce plastic input, it will be necessary to answer the initial questions: Where does all the plastic come from anyhow? And how does it get into the sea? the paper said.

Schmidt and his team addressed these questions by analyzing scientific studies that examined the plastic load — that is the quantity of plastic carried by the water — in rivers.

They converted the results of the studies into mutually comparable datasets and determined the ratio of these figures to the quantity of waste that is not disposed of properly in the respective catchment area.

”We were able to demonstrate that there is a definite correlation in this respect,” says Schmidt.

“The more waste there is in a catchment area that is not disposed of properly, the more plastic ultimately ends up in the river and takes this route to the sea.”

In this context, large rivers obviously play a particularly large role — not only because they also carry a comparatively large volume of waste on account of their larger discharge.

Schmidt says, “the concentrations of plastic, i.e. the quantity of plastic per cubic meter of water are significantly higher in large rivers than small ones. The plastic loads consequently increase at a disproportionately higher rate than the size of the river.”

The researchers have also calculated that the ten river systems with the highest plastic loads (eight of them are in Asia and two in Africa) — areas in which hundreds of millions of people live, in some cases — are responsible for around 90 percent of the global input of plastic into the sea.

From this study it is clear once again that, just like air pollution, the greatest threat to the world’s environment does not come from the White world, but rather from the non-White world.

Continued denial of the racial factor as the primary cause of world events is the real reason why the “experts” can never arrive at a satisfactory answer of “why” things happen, and also what is needed to stop these things happening.

Until racial realism is restored in world science, the problem will continue, and the world will continue its downward spiral.

More, here:
https://nationalvanguard.org/2019/04/90 ... ment-23639

Post Reply