Over fifty years since the publication of the book 'The Population Bomb', the Author of the book Paul Ehrlich warned overpopulation and overconsumption would drive us over the edge.

I agree. The realities are there and we can't ignore them.

For me this is put in the context of Australia's population recently reaching 27 million people. It's not something we can sustain and we must take affirmative action today. Our rivers are drying up, our farmland is shrinking due to urban sprawl and housing and air quality is dropping.

We still have many arguing for a 'big Australia' despite the impacts environmentally and socially, including lowering our quality of life. Quality of life is something Australians should be able to have and not something we should have to sacrifice.

In Australia we are seeing the growing divide as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With only so many resources available, you have to spread them out per person and we each only get so much each. It's not a lot.

As we all know climate change is an ongoing issue, with Australia one of the highest per capita in terms of emissions due to our throw away lifestyles. We're not overly good at saving resources and our ecological footprint is a high one per person.

We can't afford is our current population increasing the way it is at the moment and according to Sustainable Population Australia, we must stabilise our population below 30 million to stop the growing impacts on climate and biodiversity, as well as to preserve quality of life.

Dear Nathan,

«we must stabilise our population below 30 million to stop the growing impacts on climate and biodiversity, as well as to preserve quality of life.»

That would be nice, but can you do so without using violence?

There are way too many people in the whole world - if you want to prevent them from coming to Australia, then you could only do so at gunpoint, and somehow I don't think that you would approve that.

Australia's population is increasing mainly through mass immigration. That can be stopped. As for the world population, one minute we are told it is shrinking, the next we are told it is increasing.

Perhaps the WEF is right when it says that the great threat to the world is misinformation. I think the main problem is some people picking the information that suits their particular ideology. For instance, Paul Paul Ehrlich was proven wrong in everything he predicted.

Australia’s ‘drying up’ and ‘shrinking’ problems are all down to government mismanagement, not population. They want more people for their own reasons; but they don't cater for them when they get here; then obviously, everyone gets a smaller slice of the same size pie.

Climate change is NOT an “ongoing issue”. The issue is government and activist hysteria about the non-issue. Climate change is an “emergency” concocted by governments to give them what they want: bigger and more tyrannical governments.

Reading Leftist crap and spreading alarm is not going to help anyone, Nathan. If you want to do something, vote for politicians OTHER than Labor, Liberal, Greens and Teals.

There is not a single problem in Australia that, if not actually caused by politicians, has been exacerbated by them.

Yuyutsu,

<<There are way too many people in the whole world - if you want to prevent them from coming to Australia, then you could only do so at gunpoint, and somehow I don't think that you would approve that.>>

I can believe tough decisions can be made without guns. Why do some always see guns/weapons as the only answer? I've think we've become to used to it.

Yes, there would be rush of people if we were to 'cap' at 30 million, but I dread the time for others when they are living in populations in Australia of 50 million, 100 million etc. These high numbers of people are nothing more than new bodies sucking life out of the limited resources available in Australia and taking away from the land. It's not a good thing for the planet or future generations.

ttbn,

<<Reading Leftist crap and spreading alarm is not going to help anyone, Nathan.>>

We're now at 27 million people. Wake up!! The figures we can't go over are 30 million people in Australia. So, we're not far off. Tough decisions are going to have to be made, including by the politicians you hate. The others you suggest we vote for generally don't get in and we don't have enough of them in parliament. To make a difference they need to be in Government or control the Senate.

Every day we are getting closer and you can only cram so many people into a small space. Not many people want to live in central or remote parts of Australia. So, it's not looking very good. The writing is on the wall.

Dear Nathan,

No matter what 'cap's you set, unless you use guns to physically stop people from coming, they will still arrive.

We don't need to give them citizenship or any other legal "status", we definitely don't need to give them benefits like social welfare, medical care or police protection - and that would possibly stop half of them, but the rest would still come in their millions and like it or not, you need to decide within yourself whether you are willing to use guns against them.

This problem of overpopulation is universal, it is not unique to Australia.

Hi Nathan,

Of course rapid population growth contributes to
problems. Higher waste production, including sewerage,
pollution, carbon emissions, air and water pollution,
deforestation, and a much faster depletion of our
natural habitats leading to biodiversity loss. And that's
not mentioning the infrastructure and planning policies and
programs that we need to plan to cater for the growth of the people
numbers.

However, I'm not sure at what rate our population is increasing.
and whether our death rates and our ageing population balances
things out. There's so many factors that need to be considered.
I don't think it's as bleak as all that.

Nathan

Where did you get the idea that we can't go over 30 million people? Who has said that?

I freely admit that I would prefer a 1960s Australia. And I am against immigration. But you have to prove that Australia couldn't carry 30 million people - not many more than we have now - or admit that you are talking bullsh-t.

I don't like immigration because it is changing the identity of the country I was born in 80 years ago. But, that doesn't mean Australia could not support 30 million people, when it is now quite clearly going to have to, thanks to our appalling politicians.

We have had more than half a million people come here in the last 12 months! And, many countries not as big or as well resourced as we are have more than 30 million people.

So, I am in agreement with you. I don't want more people here; but making inaccurate claims about how many people Australia can carry will not convince the Big Australia mob. You can't get away with talking BS that they can easily disprove. They will tell you that, with improved infrastructure and other measures, many more people could be catered for. There is no guarantee that they would actually provide what is needed, but they don't have to.

If you want to be convincing, don't make things up, think with your head, forget emotions and feelings, and as I said before, vote for different people.

And, Yuyutsu, you are not talking sense either. We can stop people coming here, without guns. We are a sovereign country, and cannot be made to take people we don’t want. We just need to get what we want through to the politicians by replacing them with new ones.

Dear Ttbn,

Replacing all politicians is a blessing in itself, but is hardly relevant to this topic.

Now if you claim the ability to stop people coming here without using guns, then indeed you are a genius or a warlock. Are you willing to share that secret with us too, suppose a ship or a plane comes in to Australia full of people who just disembark and refuse to stop?

Yuyutsu

Were you not here when Abbott 'stopped the boats'? Even Labor eventually got the message on stopping illegals. Our border control is the envy of the UK and Europe. And we have the advantage of being an island.

As for legal immigration, that can be stopped at any time by the right politicians. The current government was reported last week as knocking back requests for student visas.

I don't know where you get the idea that we can't decide who comes here if we so choose to do so. John Howard and Tony Abbott did it. With the right politicians, it will happen again.

No guns needed at the moment, but all countries have the ability and right to defend themselves in any way they think fit. There is no world government, despite the lunatics in the UN, who would like the role.

Dear Ttbn,

From years of interaction with Nathan, I believe that he opposes violence, thus I explained to him that stopping unwanted people from coming requires violence.

It is not my place to give unsolicited advice to others.

I was here when Abbott and Howard before him stopped the boats.
Whatever they did, I did not like and it was never approved by me or done on my behalf,
but these two never sought my advice, whereas Nathan did.

«I don't know where you get the idea that we can't decide who comes here if we so choose to do so»

While only God decides who will come and who will not, nothing prevents man from deciding to TRY bringing about a certain outcome.

So of course, you may decide to try to stop the boats even if that means that you must use violence in doing so. The use of violence will only make you worse off in the long run, but I will not be the one to try robbing you of your free will.

«all countries have the ability and right to defend themselves in any way they think fit.»

And much more.

But if one attacks others in the name of self-defence, falsely because these others never sought to harm them and only went about their own life benignly, then there are consequences, unpleasant ones, yet again, it is not for me to try taking your free choice away.

«There is no world government, despite the lunatics in the UN, who would like the role.»

Indeed thank God there isn't any such human government and I hope there never will be, yet God has governed the world before it was even created and will continue to govern it for eternity. Nathan, I believe, wishes to be on good terms with God, but if you do not share that wish, then go ahead and do what you like - it is not with me that you will have issues then.

Our border is just like the US southern border, only we let them fly in.
I swear this is not about the economy or growth.
I think it has a nefarious basis, they WANT to wreck all our countries.
Either that or the policies were written by foreigners, not Aussies.

Armchair Critic,
It'd be pretty hard to disagree with that going by the evidence !

A Parliament of Landlords Will Not Solve Australia’s Housing Crisis
http://jacobin.com/2023/02/australia-parliament-landlords-housing-albanese

They talk about their committment to the housing crisis but it's hard to take seriously when the politicians are becoming wealthier because of immigration and an artificially created housing shortage.

Some data might help the situation:

In 2023 the population increased by 624,000.

This was made up of (approx):

290,000 births
184000 deaths
518,000 nett arrivals (747000 arrivals, 219,000 departures)

So clearly most of the increase was immigration and therefore the whole thing is in the hands of the government to resolve.

That is, they could resolve it if they thought it was a problem. Since they don't stop it they clearly don't see it as a problem.

Now of course, they will say that the things like housing affordability is an issue they want to solve. And they will say that congestion in the cities is a problem they want to solve. And they will say lack of necessary infrastructure is a problem they want to solve. But clearly this is just talk. Stopping immigration or vastly reducing it would solve all these problems.

But, it would create other problems the government doesn't want to face. For a start, increasing numbers increases the national GDP. Australia would have gone into recession last year were it not for immigration. Of course, per capita GDP fell in 2023, but clearly the government isn't concerned about that. Individual Australians were worse off but the government could crow about rising GDP.

If immigration stopped, it would take the heat out of the housing market. Governments say that would be a good thing, but it would be a disaster for those governments. Falling or even stagnant housing prices would be an economic mess the governments want to avoid. They need prices to continue to rise or else a 2008-style (US) crash would be the result. So they need to keep the immigration tap wide open to keep the housing market buoyant.

But primarily both sides favour immigration. The Libs see new workers and customers for business. And the ALP see new left wing voters. So there is a conspiracy among the majors to keep it going, irrespective of what the population wants.

In 2002, it was forecast by Treasury that the population would reach 25 million by 2042. They forecast we'd get to 27 million by 2055. We got there 30 years earlier than forecast.

The forecast wasn't wrong, it just didn't take into account that governments would permit massive immigration.

Those forecasts were partially made so that governments could plan infrastructure to match. But, as Graham Richardson pointed out, we got 2055's population in 2025 but we still only got 2025's infrastructure. Roads, rail, hospitals, schools, etc didn't keep up with immigration and its unlikely to in the future.

There is a massive opportunity for a Trump style character to ride a popular wave of anger at the way the big parties are ignoring the popular opinion against unrestrained immigration. Hanson tried to be that person but isn't up to it. Palmer likewise.

Let's hope that person comes before its too late.

"In 2002, it was forecast by Treasury that the population would reach 25 million by 2042. They forecast we'd get to 27 million by 2055. We got there 30 years earlier than forecast."

What should I make of this...

Successive goverments have effectively stuffed the country, privatised everything, blown out our national debt, spent wastefully on all this woke crap and now have nothing left except immigration to keep the country afloat.

Still don't know what to think.

If its not nefarious, then it's gross negligence and complete incompetence.
I always say we should never underestimate incompetence.

Is it democracy that doesn't work, our just our leadership is crap?
Why do we vote for these idiots?

Is it democracy that doesn't work, our just our leadership is crap?
Armchair Critic,
That and, a demographic in parallel !

"Successive goverments have effectively stuffed the country...."

Each country gets the government it deserves and/or wants. Its true that governments since 2007 have pulled all the wrong levers. But those governments have been doing what the populace wanted.

We didn't get the massive debt because governments just went out spending. They spent money the electorate asked them to spend and rewarded them for spending. Lockdowns, which were the main cause of the current debt problem, were wildly popular and supported by the majority.

All of our current power problems were caused by the populace urging governments to adopt green policies. that the policies were unachievable was not considered. The people want power to be green, affordable and reliable. Governments for the last quarter century have floundered trying to meet those aims. But still the populace clamours for it.

The populace probably doesn't want a big Australia but they keep electing people who do. Is that the fault of the elected or the electors?

Our leadership is pathetic. But its the populace who make the leaders

mhaze

Wise words; but water off a duck's back as far as Australians are concerned; they don't understand democracy, nor the power they have to to make politicians serve them instead of ruling them.

We've obviously got to plan and manage the rate of
growth through the migration program and plan and
invest in infrastructure and services needed for
the future. Better population planning will help overcome
capacity constraints and conjestion pressures in our
biggest cities.

Unfortunately politics currently plays such a detrimental
part in our leadership. What we need are public servants
not politicians. We need to leave politics out of things
and unite to do what is good for the nation. Our leaders
should work together and leave politics out of their
policies and programs. Instead of fighting amongst themselves
and trying to score points - they should unite and make
decisions that benefit everyone - not matter whose team
they're on.

We all breathe the same air. We all live on this planet.
We all have families, children, grandchildren. What does
it matter if we're Right-wing or Left-wing, Conservative,
of Progressive - we're all people.

As Billy Graham once said words to the effect:

Right-wing, Left-wing. I prefer the entire bird.

We have a massive immigration programme because, despite what the people want or say they want, the political class want something different and the people are sufficiently motivated to demand something different.

The Libs (or at least that part of the Liberal Party that thinks it represents business) want a big immigration programme because it provides business with a greater customer base and helps to suppress wages.

The ALP wants a big immigration plan because it thinks it provides them with a whole cadre of new voters while also supplementing multiculturalism. Also the immigration industry are massive doners to the ALP.

The public service wants a big immigration programme because administering it gives the PS more power and prestige, and a bigger Australia means more taxes and more reasons to have bigger programmes in general which again enhances the public services power and prestige.

The public on the other hand are the ones who suffer from a big population where the government provided infrastructure doesn't keep up. But the public doesn't get a say

I asked 'Is our leadership crap?'
- I may have just gotten my answer...

Lidia Thorpe calls for ‘sleazy’ MPs to be excluded from sitting weeks and fined for bad behaviour
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/15/lidia-thorpe-calls-for-sleazy-mps-to-be-excluded-from-sitting-weeks-and-fined-for-bad-behaviour

'Sleazy'?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/07/lidia-thorpe-denies-dating-former-bikie-boss-and-is-cleared-of-wrong-doing-by-senators

Here she is looking smug wearing the old leopard skin outfit in Parliament talking about how she wasn't really in a relationship with Rebel Bikie boss and that she was told by her then party’s lawyers to say she dated him.

Should I comment here?
- No comment.

Baldrick,

Lidia Thorpe is a gangreen far-left whinge activist that is not even vaguely representative of the country's leaders. The gangreens also included Jonathan Doig who raped many children.

mhaze

<<But primarily both sides favour immigration. The Libs see new workers and customers for business. And the ALP see new left wing voters. So there is a conspiracy among the majors to keep it going, irrespective of what the population wants.>>

I don't totally agree there re left wing voters, but agree with the overall sentiment. The libs do see new workers and voters and for labor new voters across the board. Anyone you can get to vote for you has to be a bonus.

ttbn,

<<Were you not here when Abbott 'stopped the boats'? Even Labor eventually got the message on stopping illegals. Our border control is the envy of the UK and Europe. And we have the advantage of being an island.>>

We have people still trying to come to Australia by boat, it's just that governments in Australia don't want the media to know and so you don't find out. These boats are being returned to their place of origin and it is happening, including now. For those directly affected I'm sure it's not a nice experience, they'd rather get away from a horrid place they've been living in and live in Australia. I don't blame them.

This is my point to Yuyutsu, I don't know bad the violence is there with turning back the boats, but it's already happening. I'm not supportive and believe we should take in more humanitarian entrants, but we can't keep taking people from generally financially well off countries forever. If there is any violence with these people, try and keep that to a minimum or avoid all together.

When we come to our last drop of water here, there is no suitable land left to grow food anymore as it's all covered in housing, our roads are jammed with cars and traffic due to so many living here and our air quality is terrible it will all be too late. It is important to be raising concerns now and want a debate on how to implement change for the betterment of future generations.

Dear Nathan,

«but we can't keep taking people from generally financially well off countries forever.»

Nobody was suggesting that we need to "take" them, or support them financially or in any other way.

Leaving them alone and not physically/violently preventing them from arriving does not amount to taking them.

You may like to think of these people as animals: suppose a wild animal somehow manages to reach Australian shores, and assuming it does not carry disease or poses a danger to humans or livestock, it should not be stopped. That does not mean that it will be taken, not by the state anyway though some individual Australian may decide to take it as a pet or as farm-stock.

Why should humans be treated worse than animals?

You don't need to grant them them residence, citizenship, healthcare or any other rights above the existing laws against cruelty to animals. If someone adopts them as pets, for example, then they will be required to house and feed them properly, make sure they do not disturb the neighbours, and would not be allowed to beat or torture them, or to kill them in a painful manner.

I think that treating those who arrive without a permit like animals, no better but no worse either, should reduce the number of arrivals significantly without needing to be cruel or violent.

I don't think any human being should be treated like an animal.
I think they should be treated with respect decency and dignity.
(Treat others the way you'd like to be treated)

Also I think the existing population have a right to decide what sort of people they wish to share their country with,
i.e. who they deem worthy of Australian citizenship;
- And how many should be allowed to do so in a given period.

This is our country, foreigners don't have any rights to decide anything.
They can come, spend their money and then go home.
If they like the place and want to call it home, then they will respect what the existing citizens think if they wish to become one.
If not, then they're not worthy of this country, and they need not apply.

The world is not some halfway house, and freedom isn't free.
Nor are the benefits that we bestow upon our citizenry.

Dear Critic,

«I don't think any human being should be treated like an animal.»

Neither do I, but my point was that human beings should be treated AT LEAST like an animal.

«I think the existing population have a right to decide what sort of people they wish to share their country with»

Speaking of "THEIR", no country belong to any group of people.

The concept of "ownership" is artificial and holds only within a given society: if you aren't part of a society, how more so if you aren't even human, then that term is nonsensical.

Your house may be registered in your name on some computer in the city, but simultaneously, most of it could be your cat's territory except the front yard which "belongs" to the neighbour's cat; birds again have their own boundaries and ants ignore all fences, even the boundaries of your cat and birds...

Every human is also an animal, thus if a society of humans is unwilling to accept them socially as members under their human capacity, then fair enough, but they should still be able to physically arrive under their animal capacity (which doesn't grant them citizenship or any similar privileges).

«This is our country,»

You seem to confuse "country" as a human society with "country" as a geographical piece of land.

«foreigners don't have any rights to decide anything.
They can come, spend their money and then go home.»

But they do have rights, even if they're not exactly the same:
When a visitor comes on a visa, they make a contract with the human society they visit. That contract may not grant them welfare or voting rights, but it does grant them police protection and if cheated or physically beaten they can appeal to the courts of the land. Animals don't get that!

«The world is not some halfway house, and freedom isn't free.
Nor are the benefits that we bestow upon our citizenry.»

Indeed, and those who arrive under their animal capacity should not expect these benefits, not even have land-ownership registered in their name and respected by courts.

Hi Yuyutsu,
I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

My first thought is how would this system work in Israel?
Is everyone just going to drop their weapons, animosity and past grievances, group hug and make up?
- I think it's unrealistic, more of a feel-good 'in a perfect world' type of thinking that probably cannot and will not ever exist in the real world.

I think in order for your idea of things to actually work, all the people would have to agree to support that ideology, including the United States of America, who thinks it has a right to dictate to other nations.

I'm not sure ownership is the correct word, but I'm also not convinced it isn't, another word could be 'authority'. This may also be connected with the idea of democracy - that the people decide what is best for their society.

If you are to argue that the people aren't the owners of their country, or do not have authority over it, or the future direction of their society, then who does?

Saying we are not the owners, is like abandoning ones post, because in the real world doing so will leave a vacuum that someone else will step into and then they will act as the owner or the authority, and the people will have no say.

An individual can choose not to be an active part of society, but they still enjoy the benefits of that society.

Tell me, do you get food from a supermarket, do you travel on roads to get medical assistance, do you like hot showers and if so, do you get it from a tap, or do you boil water you collected from the river, and if you do collect water from the river was the container used one that you obtained from a store or one you made your self?

[Cont.]
I don't agree that people can just wash up on shore and call the place home. The second you are on our shores you will gain benefits from our society. We will not let you starve, and if you need medical assistance, you will receive it.

Somebody had to build that infrastructure, somebody had to pay so those services are available to the citizenry.

These are benefits the existing society created for themselves, and you too can share those benefits.
Saying these 'animals' can be here, but they do not get the benefits turns a society into chaos.
Next minute you're in the street holding a cup wanting something for nothing, because you want the same level of dignified existence everyone else enjoys.
And the next minute after that you're running around with a machete attacking people because society didn't include rights for you and you feel marginalised and discriminated against.

Dear Critic,

Since the Israel-Gaza wall fell on October 7th, over 5,000 hungry and neglected dogs strayed from Gaza into Israel.
Israelis are urged not to adopt them because they carry many nasty diseases, including rabies.

Still, there is no criminal ban on it.
If someone still adopts such a dog, then they are not only more likely to get sick, possibly even die, but would also incur harsher penalties if despite the warnings they negligently allow such a dog to infect others.

Others may choose to shoot these dogs for fear of disease, and that's OK too.

People who wash up on a shore should not be treated worse than these dogs, particularly if citizens adopt them and vouch for community safety.

«If you are to argue that the people aren't the owners of their country, or do not have authority over it, or the future direction of their society, then who does?»

Regarding one's society, yes, people can decide what is best for their society: after all they created it.

However, people did not create the earth and despite the Biblical tale, were not given ownership or authority over it.
The fact is, they can order the cockroaches 1000 times not to come into their homes - and the cockroaches still will!

So regarding the country/land, the simple answer is God.

Now it's not that simple, but for the purpose of this discussion I think it suffices that it's not people who own the earth, otherwise we would need to digress and delve deeply into theology.

«in the real world doing so will leave a vacuum that someone else will step into and then they will act as the owner or the authority, and the people will have no say.»

An exact description of the real world - cockroaches!

«An individual can choose not to be an active part of society, but they still enjoy the benefits of that society.»

Correct. It is up to each society to set up its own acceptance rules.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«The second you are on our shores you will gain benefits from our society. We will not let you starve»

That is your choice, buddy. You don't have to. The new arrivals too could choose not to accept your food.

«Next minute you're in the street holding a cup[...] And the next minute after that you're running around with a machete»

Should that happen, nothing stops you from acting in self-defence.

And as for holding a cup, remember, you are not required to give these non-citizens any legal/police protection, so if they hold out a cup and that be a nuisance, just as if a dog held out that cup, then one could simply take that cup away from them along with its contents.

"Since the Israel-Gaza wall fell on October 7th, over 5,000 hungry and neglected dogs strayed from Gaza into Israel.
Israelis are urged not to adopt them because they carry many nasty diseases, including rabies."

Dogs with rabies have to be euthanised I think, but if the animal isn't acting rabid, you take it to the vet, as you would with any rescue dog to find out the true state of it's health.

I sometimes watch videos of rescue dogs, people in foreign countries where poverty is rife make these videos because they they get a lot of views (and thus income for the creator of the video)
Even though I know that some of these people do it not for the welfare of the animal but for the money, I still watch them, because watching them means the dogs are cared for. I've seen some dogs in some horrible states you couldn't imagine come back from the brink of death and go on to find their forever homes.
- Life's a journey.

"However, people did not create the earth and despite the Biblical tale, were not given ownership or authority over it."
- Ah, that's your angle.
We are top of the food chain, humans have domain over the earth.
We can turn jungles into deserts and deserts into jungles, if we put our mind to it.

Dear Critic,

«We are top of the food chain, humans have domain over the earth.
We can turn jungles into deserts and deserts into jungles, if we put our mind to it.»

Pride makes you fall.

It's not statement of pride it's a statement of fact.
Human beings have created civilisations and conquered the land.
High-rise buildings, farming, livestock, electricity, refrigeration, operating theatres etc.

Mans best friend, as loving and loyal as they are, did not create these things.
Human beings have created spacecraft that are reaching for the stars.

Dear Critic,

«It's not statement of pride it's a statement of fact.»

That and most of the statements you just made are indeed of true facts
(other than "Human beings conquered the land" - man cannot control or even predict earthquakes and has penetrated to a maximum of less than 0.1% of this planet's radius; and "Human beings have created spacecraft that are reaching for the stars." - they still only reach other planets. No man-made spacecraft so far completely escaped our solar system).

But even when a given statement is true, saying it can be an expression of pride.

Someone has to stick their neck out and ask the awkward questions.
What percentage of the 1,000,000 immigrants are moslems ?
What is the ratio of men to women in the immigrants ?
Are we prepared to have our country modified to comply with Islam ?
Has anybody in government studied the meaning of Jihad ?
Does anyone in government study the changes that are happening in
Europe in criminal activity ?

Y,

The Voyager spacecraft have escaped the gravity of the sun and are in interstellar space.

In case someone thinks I am exaggerating read the below link.
There is a very deliberate program for Islam to destroy Israel as
merely a starter. The intention is to ultimately take over the world
country by country imposing Sharia Law.
If you think that is a joke, there are official Sharia courts for
moslems in Britain.

France is a long way down that path, read this;

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20414/france-skyrocketing-threat

There are guns everywhere. The end result of every dispute is "if you don't do what I say the government will shoot you". But hopefully there is some rationality in this process. How your particular rationality is defined is up to individual and group traditions.

There are some countries that colonize by mismanaging their populations- this is racist. Some nations produce too many people and create a lot of CO2 other nations produce a small number of people that create a lot of CO2. Those that produce too many people say that their people don't produce a high CO2 per capita- but they produce a lot of capita.

China and India are bigger than the next 18 nations combined.

Is it racist to manage your ethnicity to become a higher proportion of humanity? Marxists seem to want to destroy European culture and then everyone else's culture to destroy false consciousness and inequality. But not everyone produces equally. People need to be free to make their own mistakes