15
posted ago by Jmricht ago by Jmricht +18 / -3

I’m not sure I believe it. Who told you that...?

Comments (39)
sorted by:
11
Allas8 11 points ago +11 / -0

Reminds me of Trumans Show where he walked in on the wrong building and saw that it was just a facade. Maybe there is something to the population hoax, internet just full of bots and shills.

8
turtlebam 8 points ago +9 / -1

Same thoughts I got, how do we really know the census data they provide is accurate? They lie about everything why not this one as well.

Guys, have anyone tried making an estimate? Is your number close to the "official figure"?

Another thing that I thought of, is that they say there is around 15 million or so jews in the world, are we sure of that figure as well? Last time I checked they said 6 million were gassed!

-6
Jmricht [S] -6 points ago +3 / -9

There is no 7.8B people on this roundflat earth. Good night. Sweet dreams.

4
ExcitableMugwump 4 points ago +5 / -1

As someone has travelled a lot and been to densely populated countries like the Philippines: I have no reason to doubt there are many billions of people on Earth. Don't really care the exact count tbh.

3
coverband 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's 7.3B too many according to the Georgia Guildstones.

5
MO-Carpenter 5 points ago +5 / -0

The NWO types made the guide stones, and the pandemic.

3
jubyeonin 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's an estimation. I remember when they were doing all this hooplah for the seventh billion child born and I thought it was moronic because it doesn't happen where and when you want it to happen.

Anyway, cities are packed and I do think we should have less people overall, but the globalist plan is to kill the smarter people, not limit the growth of the stupids.

-1
Jmricht [S] -1 points ago +2 / -3

I’ve traveled everywhere. Don’t agree.

1
Patriot11Retiree 1 point ago +1 / -0

The less densely populated areas of a country is what most travelers see. Even missionaries do not see the most densely populated slums as the NGOs consider them too lacking in basics and dangerous due to hygiene and violence.

-1
Jmricht [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

My generation was aborted.

-1
Jmricht [S] -1 points ago +2 / -3

just as a side comment. I dislike very much most people. So the number I’m given is probably right on the money.

-2
Jmricht [S] -2 points ago +1 / -3

Ok, so how many people are on this round/flat thing?

1
alltheleavesarebrown 1 point ago +2 / -1

Everyone in the world could fit on a 1/4 acre each, just within the continental US.

Showing results for number of acres in the continental US

There are 1.9 billion acres of land in the continental United States.

1
Patriot11Retiree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, but then some people have to live on snowy, desert, marshy, or rocky land with no vegetation or natural source of water. People tend to thrive on rich loamy soil with access to water and stagnate or die elsewhere.

1
alltheleavesarebrown 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's just for reference. Do you know how large a 1/4 acre is? Can easily house 4 people with a garden.

So then you have 75% of the continental US uninhabited, along with the rest of the entire world empty!!!

0
Patriot11Retiree 0 points ago +1 / -1

A house with 4 people is outdated demographics -- closer to a house with 8-10 people, so double the space required for a larger garden, chicken coop, etc. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the world is overpopulated. I do think the old aristocrats and others with old/uber wealth take too large a footprint. They need to use less land and resources, so the more densely populated areas can spread out.

1
alltheleavesarebrown 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hold on. Stick with the logic.

Every human on earth can fit into 1/4 of an acre each on the continental usa.

If they have a house on a 1/4 acre there's room for a family of 4. With a garden. Easily. Source. Been there done that.

8 people. 1/2 Acre.

So basic math would that 75% of the continental us could be devoid of humans.

And.

The rest of the world would also be empty of humans.

Fuck the elites btw.

1
Patriot11Retiree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't remember the term, hope I can explain it well enough for you to get the idea. City planners have figured out, to thrive, humans require (not want) an equal amount of living space: house, yard; "hygiene" space: water/sewage system, waste disposal; "maintenance" space: recreational, medical, shops; and "industrial" space: factories, mills, and such.

Beware those teaching/preaching all humans can be packed in a small space. The original concept comes from parasites, or those who consider themselves "elite". They want the lands, waters, resources, and air all to themselves. Humans are nothing but ants to them. Humans do not thrive when packed too densely together. There is no logic without realism.

1
frazzledrip 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've heard it put this way:

Everyone on the earth, over 18, can own their own 2000 sq ft home. We could ALL live in Alaska with over 26,000 sq miles still empty. I don't know how accurate that is, but living in Canada I can tell you over 93% of our population lives near the border. We have millions and millions of empty acres here in Canada alone.

2
alltheleavesarebrown 2 points ago +2 / -0

I guess you could do the math on that Alaska thing.

All I know is the math is correct for this: There are 1.9 billion acres of land in the continental United States. 8 billion people, so that's a 1/4 acre more or less, for each person. Imagine the entire rest of the world empty! For farming, hunting, fishing....

There's def enough space no matter it's 6 or 10 billion around right now.

1
frazzledrip 1 point ago +1 / -0

100% agree

1
Patriot11Retiree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Have noticed the northern indigenous people throughout the world maintain a low population and people living nearer the equator tend to increase in population. Wonder if settling immigrants from countries nearer the equator to northern Canada would effect their population growth rate.

-1
Jmricht [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

Answer my question.

3
ChippingToe 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fifty eight

0
Jmricht [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yeah, I know it’s 58M. Just fucking with you.

0
Jmricht [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ok 58K then. I thought as much.

0
Jmricht [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

At least you had the balls to say it.

-5
ScutFarkus -5 points ago +2 / -7

Ready for this one?

Red and green used to be reversed.

Why did they switch them?

2
FortheGenerations 2 points ago +2 / -0

My dad is "colorblind", he cannot distinguish red from green. He can see colors, but cannot differentiate red from green. As a kid he colored grass Red in kindergarten until the teacher corrected him.

0
Jmricht [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

red and green are opposite colors.

0
Jmricht [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

So it wouldn’t be that weird to tell you you’re probably an angel?

0
Jmricht [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

You tell me. Am I taking some sort of pill? I don’t do drugs.

-8
ScutFarkus -8 points ago +1 / -9

The crayola color cabal got together with the league of extraordinary ophthalmologists in the early 1900s and decided that red looked better green, and green looked better red. So they swapped them.

Next thing you know, “color blindness” appears as a mysterious new condition.

The ophthalmologist offices had a surge in business like none seen ever before.

After paying the crayola color cabal for their part in the scheme, all parties were rich, well fed, and satisfied.

0
HighFrequency 0 points ago +1 / -1

Wait...what? What do you mean "swapped them?"

1
Tugboatguy 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's one of the Mandela effects.....some remember intersection lights of the three colors red, yellow and green being in different orders like red on top or green on top. It's not one of the Mandela effects that I am effected by so not sure the the right order.

1
Patriot11Retiree 1 point ago +1 / -0

You may have gotten the history somewhat distorted. There's nothing an ophthalmologist could do to help back in the day, so no money for them. There is a difference between a new condition and a newly identified condition. I've thought the person who identified Europeans as White was red color blind and could not see the pink/red tint.

I do remember reading something 30 or so years ago about the traffic lights switching, but too lazy to look it up.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-1
Jmricht [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

This needs to sink in.

0
Jmricht [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

Just say it. Time is moving so slowly.