Think about how this benefits the cabal. It gives them the excuse for pushing global immigration since "birth rates are below replacement rate" in every major nation as well as making it easier for them to cheat because they have massive pools of non existent and dead voters to pull from.
This really Isn't complicated or difficult, rather it's straightforward. We know from the last several elections how they cheat, and we know that a large portion of the voting population is either dead or doesn't really exist. So it' stands to reason that a large portion of our actual census designated population is actually either dead or fake and part of the voter fraud machine.
Not only does this allow this to cheat more easily, but it also allows them to push fears via demographic and population manipulation. For example, "The USA has birth rates below replacement value so we have to increase immigration to prevent demographic collapse". Well if a large percentage of the population doesn't really exist, then this MSM pushed "fear" is just like global warming. It's fake, it's pushed by false "experts", and the reality is that we have nothing to worry about.
We probably have more than enough live births annually to meet replacement rates several times over, but because of our inflated population statistics it seems like we're far below that rate. Thus enabling government entities to push for mass immigration, which of course results in political and social unrest as we've seen.
This applies to other things to. Think about the absurd amounts of money that is laundered by giving social benefits like social security to dead and/or non existent "citizens". Yet another reason for them to do this, since it's another way to cripple our nations and cause social unrest by applying false pressure ot the system.
The last point I can think of off the top of my head is this would also help the cabal further splinter us and pit us against each other. "The white demographic is decreasing" for example. This is a lie for multiple reasons, but the applicable one here would be how they apply false increases to every demographic but whites to as to make it appear like there is a smaller percentage of whites in the USA. You can apply this to religion as well for the record.
Just something I've been thinking on for a while, figured I'd share it and let others discuss it since I think this theory has quite a bit of merit.
All I can say is from driving around the western states (WA, OR, CA, NV, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ) extensively for the last 50 years--there is far more buildup, far more vehicles, far fewer places to get away from it all, far more people and their relics out in what used to be the country. Sure looks like about three times as many people as there used to be, and they aren't all immigrants.
Well yeah, cities DO grow, but the point is that there's not as many as they say there are. Take Phoenix for example. Let's say the "official" statistics for Phoenix are off by 20%. Meaning 20% of the population doesn't actually exist. There's no reasonable way to tell the difference between 1.6 and 1.2 million people. And either number is more than double the reported population from 1970 (since you gave a 50 year time line).
Ergo, you're right, these areas HAVE grown, but not as much as we're being led to believe. Look at the last census. It has since been proven that they overcounted in places like NY and CA to prevent them from losing more house seats while intentionally undercounting in places like Texas and Florida to prevent them from gaining more seats.
I'm just taking this to the logical conclusion given all we know.
I've lived in Phoenix since 1968. The boundaries of Phoenix doubled in that time and have stayed the same for many years: ergo there is no space for Phoenix to expand and the only way to get more residents in Phoenix is to stack them up in apartment houses, which has been happening as fast as developers can tear down the original single family homes, old offices, etc. But it appears that growth has slowed due to the city limits. Meanwhile the urban area has grown hugely with the expansion of older cities like Glendale and Tempe to their legal limits and the development of whole new communities like Verrado (50,000). It is now city for 20 miles to the west and north of me and 30 miles to the east and 15 miles to the south. When I first lived in this neighborhood it was the edge of town. There were cotton fields, alfalfa fields, and orange groves on all the urban borders. All gone, and I live in the approximate geographic center of town now. Maybe you'd like to discuss Las Vegas or Portland?
I don't quite understand what you're arguing here. I'm not arguing that cities and urban areas haven't grown. I'm arguing that the growth is not as large as is being officially reported. Here's an example
https://files.catbox.moe/k791k4.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/ie4840.jpg
The first link is Michigan stadium full: Capacity of 107,601
The second link is AT&T stadium full: Capacity of 80,000
Without knowing their actual capacity you'd never be able to tell which actually had more people. You'd just know it's a crap ton of people. That's my point. When you start talking massive numbers, its more than easy to generate fals statistics the favor the cabal in this type of scenario. Especially when it's proven that they manipulate census result to their advantage.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/2020-census-undercount-overcount-rates-by-state.html
You are extrapolating the inaccuracy of the census, which is known, and has always been known, to the conclusion that the population is crashing. That's a big leap. The general way such conclusions are made is not from the census but from vital statistics. We may soon see a crash as the vaccine effects kick in and mortality rises, but it hasn't quite happened yet.
Defending it with visuals of football stadiums is a bit weak, imo, because it is also well known that the ability to estimate the size of things, the brightness of lights, the loudness of sounds, etc.is limited by our brains and is not a linear function, so the more of something there is, the more there has to be for us to notice the difference (Weber's Law, the "just noticeable difference"). You do know the capacity of the stadiums and you could use photographs to "count" the crowds, the same way the park services count crowds in Washington. You can't tell from a picture without context because you don't know the size of the stadium, therefore the density of the crowds is meaningless.You can only know the density looks similar (but what if these stadiums are filled with skinny Iittle asians instead of fat Americans?)
It also has always been true that censuses happen to have a political tilt, although that tilt can be somewhat measured by applying the census figures to other measures, like reported births and deaths. Supporting data like this are how the Census Bureau knows the count is off and estimates, based on their followup survey, how far off they are. It is still a statistical construct with a margin of error.The 2020 census was probably fraudulent to some degree as it just happened that all the undercounts were in Red states and the overcounts were in Blue states. What a coinkydink. Still, census.gov defends it as more accurate than the 2010 census--under Obama--no way that was accurate because he was counting illegals.
I'm arguing from observation of actual growth and traffic, which is also bound to be somewhat inaccurate, but at least anyone can go out and look and measure the miles of civilization. I don't need to know the exact numbers, at least in the west, to know there are more people and less open space. Whether that growth continues could also be observed by anyone, and by monitoring real estate projects. Interestingly, the country west of the Mississippi has only 40% of the US population. Someone as familiar with the east should comment on perceived density.