DID UN carry out option 3 (aids)

thru vaccinations via the World Health organization in africa

and thru (hepatitis ?) shots in nyc

as a way to overcome the population problem that they were handed in a report circa 1960 which basically in summary stated that based on the way the population is headed there will be a lack of resouces to continue the futufe of man kind by 2000, if

a/ birth rates weren't reduced and/or
b/ death rates increased

well enter birth control , sterilization for A

and now enter AIDS for B and in the minds of the elite they could target the "undesirable" populations compared to there false beleifs of superiority by effecting blacks in africa and then homosexuals in NYC.

ever heard this one, its a doozy

also during certain war's they were to make sure young males were enlisted and that these males if not killed during the war were to not be afraid to kill women adults and teens especially of child bearing age, and also the gov'ts would not try to end a war that fast, let the pale horse ride on a bit longer

I believe that you are only at the tip of the iceberg. I think that the elite did have motives to introduce aids to the public through the UN. I think they have introduced hard core drugs, vacens ( known to cause autism) and wars all to bring one world government and a one world religion and to reduce the population big time. Remember many of these elite families financed Hitler and his ways of dropping population numbers.

They're not doing a very good job of controlling the population. You'd think there would be much more effective methods.

Originally posted by cpdaman
a report circa 1960 which basically in summary stated...

Link to that alleged report??

No, I don't believe they got AIDs started that way.
I think its a virus that mutated naturally and that no government started.

In terms of reducing fertility/birth rates - there are two biggies in the western world doing not a bad job. The mass media is pushing the anorexic ideal of womanhood and the processed food industry is creating obesity - both significant causes of infertility in women.

Additionally, normalising homosexuality reduces the number of possible breeders as well. Pre-Kinsey, homosexuality was considered a deviancy and homosexuals would have 'normal' relationships which would in the usual course of things bear children - not so now. The earlier people come out the less likely they are to procreate.

AIDS is of course the biggie in Africa, but also look at increases in STDs in general. Chlamydia (spelling ahhh!) causes infertility is left unchecked. Syphilis is also increasing. Again permissive sexual practices in the west and beyond proliferates this. The Kinsey reports again play a large part in this - these were of course funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Also, recent studies have shown that women who wait until they are older to have children, risk their children experiencing increased fertility problems. Career women wait. Women are almost considered inadequate if they don't have a career before, during and after child rearing.

I certainly feel that that particular area is well covered.

As far as death rates are concerned, again in Africa it is doing a bang up job. I with almost absolute certainty believe that AIDS is manufactured, it is gut instinct nothing more. Head and heart seem to agree on it, and sometimes that is all we've got to go on.

well if it is a fact that we need to reduce population or curb population growth significantly and we can either create diseases and conflicts which often do this and make the elite's money and take right's a way from citizens all at once, it seems like that may be enough leverage to get people to change there hangups on limiting the amount of children a family can have: like one child

oh you want to have as many as you like, nope sorry u can't. because odds are u can't afford them, and if everyone thought like u what state would our country be in? it's called taking responsibility and understanding the ramifications of your decisions in the big picture

now say u can afford to have more children, should u be allowed to have two in this instance that they will most likely be contributing members to society, ok fine. but there are guidelines to be met

the above is basically just brainstroming but when u look at the details of the matter, there is no pretty solution. and it is either decieve people behind there backs which there is less opposition to but barbaric. or limit the amount of children you can have which there would probably be more resistance to but be less brutal.

There is a flaw though - the size of the ageing populations in the Western world. Without an increase in young people each country will have insufficent taxable income or GDP to support the aged. So limitation on reproduction would be foolish - unless you're assuming there is a one world government by this time LOL. The more sensible approach would be geronticide.

Sensible for whom? Certainly not for anyone who is a senior.

Without an increase in young people each country will have insufficent taxable income or GDP to support the aged.

well the amount of young people in each country will become pretty stable and i think they can either a/ raise taxes or b/ die and starve millions from overpopulations and over use of ecosystems

or c/ maybe the aged will be more keen to work later in life and take care of themselves exercise more and eat a bit better

do u think they altered ppls genetics to make them gay and not reproduce