There's nothing wrong with a steady-state population (like humans insist upon for EVERY OTHER SPECIES BUT THEMSELVES), it's just the fucking retarded, crack-addicted economists who think otherwise.
Hang them even before the fucking lawyers, and make the niggerlovers spay and neuter their ugly fucking dangerous pets.
Americans DO have the man and firepower, they're just afraid to use those guns they hold so dear against human invaders like they already ought to be doing.
That's why you got to increase the numbers of those WILLING to fight if the need comes.
Basically, we need more ,Christians mostly, well brung up families with core moral values to boost the numbers, those people are in short supply to what's needed to defend the country.
There's lots of animals that humans are trying to increase the populations of. Pandas for example.
Surprising as it might sound it could very well be that there is no real intent to increase panda numbers because they are needed in low numbers to generate funding for other things.
Conservation groups are the ones who decide where their funding is spent, and more precisely what animals is it spent on. The general public are more often than naught donating to the conservation groups as a whole, not "I want Penny the Panda to have a new tyre swing". This is largely because the general public likes cute and fluffy animals as there is a far greater affinity towards Mammals as a whole than other taxonomical Classes like Reptiles, Amphibians, Avians and various other Chordates before even considering other entire Phylum like Arthropods.
So species like the Giant Panda get pushed to the front as the poster child for generating funding through donations because if it was tried with other species which were equally in need of funding or even more in need, like some species of newts, then the money wouldn't happen because mammals > amphibians to most.
It's basically a grift the conservation groups have to pull on the general public because said public cares more about how the animals look rather than whatever ecological importance might be at hand.
There's nothing wrong with a steady-state population (like humans insist upon for EVERY OTHER SPECIES BUT THEMSELVES), it's just the fucking retarded, crack-addicted economists who think otherwise.
Hang them even before the fucking lawyers, and make the niggerlovers spay and neuter their ugly fucking dangerous pets.
I wouldn't argue if you had a strong defence, but even America hasn't got a strong border force to 'keep out the barbarians'
If you don't have a strong enough force to repel ALL intrusions, you need a population size large enough to counter that invasion.
Americans DO have the man and firepower, they're just afraid to use those guns they hold so dear against human invaders like they already ought to be doing.
That's why you got to increase the numbers of those WILLING to fight if the need comes.
Basically, we need more ,Christians mostly, well brung up families with core moral values to boost the numbers, those people are in short supply to what's needed to defend the country.
This is an entirely minor point but the term there should be "brought".
Best to mobilize what exists, because why fight for human cattle?
Rather, everyone is better off when there are fewer people. It's the Africans that are wrong. Including here Mr Musk.
Surprising as it might sound it could very well be that there is no real intent to increase panda numbers because they are needed in low numbers to generate funding for other things.
Conservation groups are the ones who decide where their funding is spent, and more precisely what animals is it spent on. The general public are more often than naught donating to the conservation groups as a whole, not "I want Penny the Panda to have a new tyre swing". This is largely because the general public likes cute and fluffy animals as there is a far greater affinity towards Mammals as a whole than other taxonomical Classes like Reptiles, Amphibians, Avians and various other Chordates before even considering other entire Phylum like Arthropods.
So species like the Giant Panda get pushed to the front as the poster child for generating funding through donations because if it was tried with other species which were equally in need of funding or even more in need, like some species of newts, then the money wouldn't happen because mammals > amphibians to most.
It's basically a grift the conservation groups have to pull on the general public because said public cares more about how the animals look rather than whatever ecological importance might be at hand.
Yes, because their populations are GENUINELY too low.
But as soon as their populations reach a certain level ....
As soon as spotted cats started to recover, the fur industry immediately started lobbying to re-legalize trade in spotted cat pelts ....
Or "I saw a deer in my garden/by the side of othe road, they're starving, shoot 'em!
Or what they're doing to wild swine at the moment, shooting them from trucks - GO DO THAT TO MIGRANTS!