Ask me a year ago and I could whip it out in a snap. Unsurprisingly, those interviews are difficult to find now.
Maybe I shouldn’t say "stated goal of the heritage foundation. " it was statements made by the members of the HF. They have a magic number of 100m people.
JD Vance is the one who says its most often - “an Ideal (US) population size of 100,000,000”, “100,000,000 bitcoin owners.” KN said that her fentanyl bust saved 75% of America - which would have been 268,000,000 Americans.
Other statememts by the HF members can be paraphrased as "you can’t just execute people on mass, they would revolt. Things like famine, disease, and war are seen as ‘acceptable’ forms of death. "
If i find the time I’ll dive through my profile to find the statements again.
Good on you for asking me to back it up.
HF is an anti-vice right-wing nationalistic death cult exactly like the Nazis and every other mass murdering regime in history. Don’t look for them saying it directly. Look at their policies. Increasing the prices of imported food. A HEAVY anti-vaccination movement. Gutting the CDC. Attempts at inciting violent resistance with ICE.
I might have more luck if I do searches on Project 2025.
The comment contains several different categories of claims that should not be treated equally:
Claims about Heritage Foundation goals
The Heritage Foundation has published policy proposals, including Project 2025. However, a claim that the organization has a goal of reducing the U.S. population to 100 million people requires direct evidence: an official document, speech, interview, or policy proposal explicitly stating this. Attributing statements by individual members to the entire organization requires caution.
Claims about specific individuals
If JD Vance or another public figure has stated a preference for a smaller population, the exact quote and context matter. A statement such as “an ideal population size” is not automatically equivalent to a policy goal of population reduction through coercive means.
Claims about famine, disease, war, or mass death being “acceptable”
This is an extremely serious allegation. It requires direct quotations or documented policies. A policy that has harmful consequences is not automatically proof that the authors intend those consequences.
Policy criticism vs. intent
It is possible to argue that certain policies (for example immigration restrictions, deregulation, healthcare changes, or foreign policy decisions) may increase risks or cause harm. That argument is different from proving an intention to cause mass death.
Logical issue
The comment moves from:
“Some members support policies I consider harmful”
to:
“The organization is equivalent to historical genocidal regimes.”
That is a very large inferential jump and requires strong evidence.
A rigorous evaluation would ask:
What exact document or quote supports the claim?
Is it an official position or an individual’s opinion?
Does the evidence show intended outcomes or unintended consequences?
Are there alternative explanations?
Strong criticism of an organization can be valid without relying on claims that cannot be directly demonstrated.
Don’t need to. Deliberate deregulation of food safety laws, inspections and open bribery when contamination is found has already been seen multiple times.
Can you provide a link
Ask me a year ago and I could whip it out in a snap. Unsurprisingly, those interviews are difficult to find now.
Maybe I shouldn’t say "stated goal of the heritage foundation. " it was statements made by the members of the HF. They have a magic number of 100m people.
JD Vance is the one who says its most often - “an Ideal (US) population size of 100,000,000”, “100,000,000 bitcoin owners.” KN said that her fentanyl bust saved 75% of America - which would have been 268,000,000 Americans.
Other statememts by the HF members can be paraphrased as "you can’t just execute people on mass, they would revolt. Things like famine, disease, and war are seen as ‘acceptable’ forms of death. "
If i find the time I’ll dive through my profile to find the statements again.
Good on you for asking me to back it up.
HF is an anti-vice right-wing nationalistic death cult exactly like the Nazis and every other mass murdering regime in history. Don’t look for them saying it directly. Look at their policies. Increasing the prices of imported food. A HEAVY anti-vaccination movement. Gutting the CDC. Attempts at inciting violent resistance with ICE.
I might have more luck if I do searches on Project 2025.
The comment contains several different categories of claims that should not be treated equally: Claims about Heritage Foundation goals The Heritage Foundation has published policy proposals, including Project 2025. However, a claim that the organization has a goal of reducing the U.S. population to 100 million people requires direct evidence: an official document, speech, interview, or policy proposal explicitly stating this. Attributing statements by individual members to the entire organization requires caution. Claims about specific individuals If JD Vance or another public figure has stated a preference for a smaller population, the exact quote and context matter. A statement such as “an ideal population size” is not automatically equivalent to a policy goal of population reduction through coercive means. Claims about famine, disease, war, or mass death being “acceptable” This is an extremely serious allegation. It requires direct quotations or documented policies. A policy that has harmful consequences is not automatically proof that the authors intend those consequences. Policy criticism vs. intent It is possible to argue that certain policies (for example immigration restrictions, deregulation, healthcare changes, or foreign policy decisions) may increase risks or cause harm. That argument is different from proving an intention to cause mass death. Logical issue The comment moves from: “Some members support policies I consider harmful” to: “The organization is equivalent to historical genocidal regimes.” That is a very large inferential jump and requires strong evidence. A rigorous evaluation would ask: What exact document or quote supports the claim? Is it an official position or an individual’s opinion? Does the evidence show intended outcomes or unintended consequences? Are there alternative explanations? Strong criticism of an organization can be valid without relying on claims that cannot be directly demonstrated.
No idea why we let chatgpt chat here but fine 😂
Don’t need to. Deliberate deregulation of food safety laws, inspections and open bribery when contamination is found has already been seen multiple times.
Our lives are on the line. They are CULLING US.
THEY NEED TO BE GONE BEFORE WE ARE