It's only a change in environment that can knock that down a bit, but exponential growth still wins. Birth control cut the birth rate for most people, but not for all. The resistant sub-populations are still on exponential growth even as the other sub-populations go through a population crash.

It's as certain as math. Exponential growth wins.

If you are looking more for proven statistics that get suppressed for political reasons, then the now-defunct hatefact site is what you want. It featured over 700 awkward facts, with citations. Archive as one big page: http://archive.is/LRe05 Archive with 1 page per category: http://hatefacts.subvert.pw/hub.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855

John McCain's funeral was a political event.

Remember that many people feel that a pedophile rapist should get the death penalty. They are offended by the fact that he was out on the streets of Kenosha chasing a boy. Some people, probably fewer, feel the same about the woman abuser. It is a common viewpoint that justice was served.

When in congress, Biden pushed for the harsh sentencing that we had, with the 1994 crime bill. Trump supported and then signed the First Step Act, which is legislation to undo some of that.

"Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle" -- Biden, in 1977

We know that the sound of the human voice is determined by the shape of the air passageway, including teeth and nose. We know that these shapes vary around the world.

We know that lactose tolerance varies by population, and that this would influence the degree to which milk is used as a staple food.

I think the deal is that getting a person to donate to an uninspiring political campaign is difficult, but it is easy to add a more-palatable organization in the middle to pass along the funding. It's almost money laundering.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

If you don't like the Marxist label, we can call it Soviet. The exact type of anti-family ideology isn't worth arguing over.

Encouragement of fatherless homes isn't going to make life better. You can see it even in the word choice when they say "mothers, parents" instead of "mothers, fathers". They can't even bring themselves to say the word!

Targeting the top influencers would be too obvious. There are a lot of minor influencers that add up to quite a lot, being in total very important. Facebook knows who they are.

Facebook is surely able to identify people with significant influence who aren't all that famous and who don't make any money off of it. Approximately, take the top 2% but excluding the top 0.01% to get these users.

Together they have huge influence, but mostly they aren't well-known. Their absence would have a huge impact but might not be noticed by an outside observer.

I don't like the typical moldy latex paint.

This should help to cut down on the hostile divisive rhetoric that is getting in the way of unity and effective teamwork.

Twitter bans it, yet Twitter does not ban similar efforts for other people. It's political discrimination, clear as could be. Facebook did likewise.

Discrimination against the lower class is invisible within the white population. It just goes undetected. It is never reported to the government. Group photos doesn't raise suspicion.

If race and class are correlated, then one type of discrimination can be misdetected as the other.

Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham has this to say on that trouble:

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

You can't have an honest discussion when not everybody can speak their mind.