Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss racial, ethnic and multicultural issues. Warning: The topics here are likely to be taboo, so if you are easily offended, you are better off not participating here.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
When you think about it, the fact that blacks are an r-selected species automatically means the following policies must be implemented regarding them if we don’t want the entire world to turn into a worse version of Zimbabwe.
1. They should be physically separated from human populations.
2. They should be denied any human technology and assistance that might extend their lifespans or reduce attrition.
3. They should be culled back to a level where living in their natural state and habitat is sustainable.
I don’t see how there is any alternative to these conclusions. You may not like it, but there it is. What is the excuse for believing anything different and why is all discussion on the subject not concerned with how to accomplish these goals? Are we nothing more than filthy scum like the boomers who want to pass our problems on to future generations?
Except that they are already way overpopulated in Africa and have spilled outside their natural bounds, so they would need to be deprived of human technology, removed from most areas and culled back.
I'd be interesting in anyone who has a seriously different take on the subject, as the conclusion seems so unavoidable. We know we have to allow other r-selected species such as rats, frogs, rabbits etc. to have a high mortality rate and that feeding them to avoid this would have disastrous consequences, right? Well, how does this not apply to blacks?