Question: If the elite want to reduce population, then why ..., page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 21-2-2008 @ 05:54 AM by FreeThinkerIdealist
Why if population reduction is such a need, don't they fully embrace homosexual lifestyles?

It would seem this would be a prime way of reducing population, considering that most don't have or want kids, and if they do, they can adopt the ones in foster homes.

This to me should work to their advantage, since we are all but useless sheep anyway, right? If we are so expendable, why would they care what lifestyle we live, especially one that would give them their net goals within a few generations.


I am not anti-gay, my best friend's life choice is that kind of lifestyle, which honestly doesn't seem much different than mine, heck, we both like girls


Anyway, what is the deal? It seems so counter-intuitive to have an anti-gay initiative and not support same sex marriage if their ultimate goal is to dwindle population. Taken that the average couple has two or more kids, even if they are secretly gay, I have worked with examples of this. They were married and had kids when younger, but are now with a same sex partner, so that is two people, who if didn't try to fight themselves, would have made 6 less children, and that doesn't include the possibility of their ex-men now having more kids with their new female counterparts.

Wouldn't the NWO want to reduce population in a way that leaves the land clear of dead bodies that would leave smell and disease rampant?

Or is the plan more sinister, are we but fertilizer for future crops to them as we decay, so the more the merrier.


It seems quite counter to the idea of a NWO and their desire to control a really small group of people, especially one that is supposed to have been silently in control for so long to allow population to quadruple over the last century or so.


What are the pro-NWO and anti-NWO thoughts on this?


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 07:37 AM by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist



In both 1984 and Brave New World the process of having children was heavily regulated by the State. In these contexts, one's sexual orientation would hardly matter, as there would most probably always be a surplus of demand.

I'm not sure if the NWO is pro or against homosexuality. IMO, it seems they would simply use the issue to further divide us.


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 04:55 PM by FreeThinkerIdealist
reply to post by AshleyD



I do think that some groups, be it religious or heritage, have been intentionally increasing their numbers. But, as in all groups, it is only part of the sample of the whole group, and it isn't limited to one religion or group either.

I think a lot of religions that judge homosexuals too much should go back to their scripture and what it has taught, or at least the Christians. J-sus did not befriend people who only fit to a certain set of values, backgrounds or rules. He surrounded himself with all types and led his life by example. He loved his enemies, turned the other cheek, and did not spew hate and support violence. After all, it also says, in the eyes of G-d, all sins are equal, so whether you lay with your own gender or lay with one who you are not married to or even the lustrous thoughts of a neighbor or other person's spouse, the sin is equal, you steal a penny or a pen, it is still theft. So judging others for not living up to G-d's perfection does not bode well for you, since G-d can find numerous things to counter your judgment of others from your own life.

The homosexual people I know are not light-hearted about it. They are all for me or anyone else being heterosexual, but they would not 'lay down with' the opposite sex just for a child. In fact, they find the opposite sex's organs to be quite disgusting and don't even wish to look at pictures of them, usually even the discussion of them is not very appealing either.

I more or less try to steer clear of why they are homosexual, since beliefs are wide spread and have quite a passionate conviction towards each view the holder has. I can say I have known people to which it seemed genetic, those who it seemed to be from social cues such as outcast by the 'normal' groups, and those who qualify in a mentally scarred position, those being ones who were seriously abused and/or molested and in turn have a very negative response to most things about the abusive/responsible gender. That last one can really mess someone up and no amount of counseling can fix it, sort of in the same situation as someone who has liked the same sex since a child, it is a part of them as much as anyone's preference is a part of them.

One last note on this subject before I hope it doesn't come up much more ... since I don't think besides abuse/sexual abuse people can be turned gay. My view of sexual 'choice' is as follows ... if people claim that homosexuals choose to be gay, then that would mean heterosexuals choose to be straight. I would have to disagree with this, since I did not choose to be straight, I am straight and have no desires, no inclination, and nothing could influence my choice to be anything else, I have pursued girls since the age of 4 that I can recall, including french kissing, so I am very certain on this issue. To relegate sexual preference as a choice similar to my choice of being nearly vegan, which is a choice because I find consumption of flesh disturbing after working in a slaughterhouse is not comparable other than the cases where mental scarring is the factor, not choice as in I will be a vegetarian for health reasons. But I understand and respect opposing views. I just can't agree with them from people I grew up with, knowing and speaking with them on a deeply intellectual level.





I asked here, and others, since I am not too familiar with NWO in general. I have heard of it, read about it, but am quite certain the community here have much more time vested in research in both sides of belief of this elite society. Personally, I can see how things 'add up' and can see how they can be mere coincidences. Certain long standing families that exert a lot of influence lean me more towards some kind of 'elite' group, and NWO being said by one of those family members does indicate a little bit of truth to the myth.




I thank all who responded so far, I appreciate each stance and opinion. Intriguing and thought provoking

From using the issue to further divide us, to the satanist aspect (I am, but I am taught not to judge yest ye be judged, love all mankind, so another reason I accept anyone's choices and exhibitions of free will), to the study and determination of genes/who is the cream of the crop to retain for future humanity (though reducing gene pools usually doesn't work too well in the long run). Quite a good set of responses


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 05:03 PM by AshleyD
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist



I agree and don't want to get off on tangents either as to why people are gay, whether or not it is nature versus nurture, is homosexuality a sin, etc. But what would be interesting to discuss is the view of whether or not homosexuality becoming more acceptable and 'natural' is causing a movement for more people to out on the open with it and their lifestyles.

For instance, in the past if you were gay you were expected to basically put up, shut up, get married, and have the 2.5 children. In some cultures this is still true. But now that it is more acceptable, people are no longer living a lie but are openly living with their partners of the same sex. Therefore is this purposely being influenced as a means for reducing population growth?

It's a wild conspiracy theory. Not really about the pros, cons, and neutrality of homosexuality itself.

[edit on 2/21/2008 by AshleyD]


reply posted on 26-2-2008 @ 10:56 PM by FreeThinkerIdealist
Well, I do understand that population equals tax base, pay scales, which can equal control ...

but, if the so-called elite wished, couldn't they get a select group to work under them with the promise of being well cared for, then after a population reduction, those who are left are controlled under threat of force (slavery), to sow the fields and otherwise cater to their needs?


If you have power and control, then money is not necessary any longer. (totalitarian money-less society opposed to idealistic money-less society)



Also, if you do feel they want to reduce population for the sake of food supplies or other various reasons, then really, how many do you eliminate? Down to the tens or hundreds of thousands as some say? Or is it millions? How would they find an appropriate number to run the world off of, while still being sustainable if something drastic happens after their population plan?



I also find it hard to believe that we can't solve most of the problems that would necessitate this need for global holocaust.

Food - if we use what we have now efficiently we could feed the world fine. There is a lot of waste and unused product. We can also develop new ways to grow crops in new areas.

Energy - oil is passé, we have plenty of clean and renewable energy sources, plus the advantage of using our minds to create new ones.

Population - education, protection, and taking out the benefits for having extra kids could help slow growth without resorting to too much control. I don't like the idea of limiting a family to one child. Educating people to just how difficult and expensive a child is (even if worth it). Making them work with kids and doing all the dirty stuff like cleaning vomit, poo, not sleeping for months, etc. will stop those that have kids for 'love' 'to not be alone' 'it would be neat'. Protection, voluntary free sterilizations, and abstinence to prevent the unexpected pregnancies. Change how benefits are given for those who have kids ... instead of a couple thousand dollar tax break or refund, give them a couple grand in diapers or formula or some other thing that directly relates and goes to the children.

etc. - depends on what your etc. is



If you believe they will use leftover population as slaves, do they really think slave labor is content to sit in fear and remain slaves forever?

How will the keep the population from getting out of control again?


Again, supporting non-traditional lifestyles seems like a no-brainer for population reduction ... net gain towards their ends with virtually no effort or dirtying of the hands.



Thank you all for your honest replies.


reply posted on 11-3-2008 @ 09:47 PM by Unplugged
The NWO is all about divide and conquer, and destroying traditional gender roles.

"ERASING GENDER IDENTITY

FEMINISM & HOMOSEXUALITY; HOW HETEROSEXUALITY WORKS

Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.

Feminism is elite social engineering designed to neuter both sexes, making women masculine and men feminine. Thus, women are less fit for marriage and motherhood, and men are unable to lead and sacrifice for family.

The Rockefellers and Rothschilds created feminism to weaken the family and poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government. Why? These bankers create money out of nothing and think they are God.

"Cruel Hoax" shows the connection between feminism, Communism and 9-11. It examines male-female relations and shows how we can take back our heterosexuality.

POWER FOR LOVE (THE HETEROSEXUAL CONTRACT)

"The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman illustrates how men and women relate. We all know that a woman can open a door herself. But when a man does it, he is affirming her femininity, beauty and charm. When she graciously accepts, she is validating his masculine power. This trade, a woman surrendering physical power in exchange for a man's protection (i.e. love) is the essence of heterosexuality. In order to develop emotionally, men and women need this mutual validation as much as sex itself. Sex is an expression of this exclusive contract.

Under the toxic influence of feminism, women open their own doors. Neither sexual identity is validated; neither sex matures emotionally. Men feel redundant and impotent; women feel rejected and unloved."



www.cruelhoax.ca...
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



I finally solved a great mystery! I think I see now...
  Posted 18 days ago with 72 member flags
Finally! MSM Coverage - Legal Challenges to Fed - The End is Near
  Posted 18 days ago with 48 member flags
You Westerners Are Deluded
  Posted 19 days ago with 30 member flags
‘Barcode everyone at birth’
  Posted 4 days ago with 20 member flags
Pentagon Source Alludes to Martial Law Around July 1st, 2012
  Posted 2 days ago with 18 member flags
FBI Seize Email server, then return it
  Posted 15 days ago with 16 member flags