/pol/ - Irrelevance of "depopulation" - Politically Incorrect

Anonymous (ID: M8FrbyuV) Archived

Irrelevance of "depopulation"(...) 07/19/26(Sun)19:15:20 No.539256886

File: SDLJKFJKLFDSJLKFDSLKJLJKS(...).jpg (277 KB, 1200x1200)

Irrelevance of "depopulation" Anonymous (ID: M8FrbyuV) 07/19/26(Sun)19:15:20 No.539256886 Archived

Here's an example of "depopulation" being irrelevant: Americans populated each region of the nation

>but what are the regions of America?

EAST COAST:
>Virginia(1607)
>Massachusetts(1620)
>SouthCarolina(1670)
>Georgia(1733)

GREAT LAKES:
>Ohio(1803)
>Indiana(1816)
>Michigan(1837)

GULF COAST:
>Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama(1812-1819)
>Florida/Texas(1845)

WEST COAST:
>California(1850)
>Oregon(1859)

Anonymous (ID: bfAjkhu+)
07/19/26(Sun)19:53:15 No.539258678

Anonymous (ID: bfAjkhu+) 07/19/26(Sun)19:53:15 No.539258678

File: images-7.jpg (29 KB, 564x354)

29 KB JPG

>>539256886
Got news...the chart shows how it got populated. Thing is about fuel...

Anonymous (ID: M8FrbyuV)
07/19/26(Sun)20:27:24 No.539260152

Anonymous (ID: M8FrbyuV) 07/19/26(Sun)20:27:24 No.539260152

>>539258678
>more people
>more production and energy use
Well energy is extraction ==> generation ==> transmission