It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Overpopulation? Elitest Propaganda and Damned Lies Lies Lies!

page: 19
162
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Don't worry droogie the rich were nice enough to fund a bunch of prison camps that we can throw them in. I guess its better then shallow graves.




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational
reply to post by spikey
 


You made some excellent points about WAFLE. The overpopulation concept is based upon some rather outdated economic theories.

The real issue is market efficiencies and delivery of the resources. Getting the WAFLE to where it needs to be utilized can be difficult. The world has a food surplus and yet people do starve. But, to your point, it is NOT due to excess population.

And more to the point, who do these overpopulation-expounders suggest to decide who should be "reduced?"


Thanks spaznational,

For me, the question of 'who's for the chop?' is playing right into the elitist hands...these people have lots resources at their disposal and regularly use psychology as a control tool. (iow, hope it's not me and my family, implies it will be some other family instead)

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by Love thy neighbor
Love this thread, thanks OP. You hit nail on the head about money being the issue. I am always saying the same thing about money being imaginary and of course people look at me like I'm crazy. Really great thread.


Ok well send me all of your "imaginary" money and try paying your electric bill with love, kindness, or care.

Lemme know how that works out for ya.


Deeper ViperChili, much deeper.

You're talking societal veneer, we're talking societal engineering.

There's much more to the issues being mentioned, than simply the obvious *current* day to day financial outlays required to function in this system..rent, food, utilities are required to be bought and paid for with paper, under our current system...but this system, our profit/greed driven system, *isn't* where this vision is 'set'.

The necessary (but essentially basic) changes and innovations, required to comfortably and amicably support our current and future planetary populations is envisioned to occur in addition to a paradigm change, a shift in our perceptions of just what exactly is a justifiable way to live in harmony, rather than our current system of 'just me'.

There are only two choices.

Carry on as we are in our present self centred, profit and wealth based systems and expect severe population controls, further polluting of the planet, and resources increasingly available to a relative few.

Or we can avoid *all* of the above, painlessly, with only a change in our perceptions and the will to drive the required impetus to implement the changes, to let go of the old ideas of personal/national avarice, and work towards a new fresher and beneficial future for all of us.

Neither option is going to be easy or happen overnight, but given the two, which is the better choice?



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Where to begin...Thanks for the post, i s'pose would be good!

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts, but i'm a little confused over some of your points..




You dont seem to be factoring into the equation the utter dependence of these new technologies on oil. And the dependence of our food production on oil.

The population began its real spike because of ........oil. You cant make the alternative energy sources you are discussing without oil. Even if you get solar powered combines, and other havesters, trucks to transport, etc., our foods, the whole system is still heavily dependent on oil and the sun and the wind are not going to replace that dependence.


You're not seeing the full picture.

Try not to think 'type 0', but more a 'type 1' civilisation, which is what we will become should we be wise enough to implement these types of changes in our attitudes and our technology.

You seem to be looking at (correctly) problems that would occur with our current methods of farming. And you're absolutely right, currently we need fossil fuels to power our farming infrastructure and equipment, like harvesters, trucks and the like.

In the envisioned societies, using the proposed (or similar) highly innovative methods of food production, we won't require combines or harvester..at least not any you'd recognise to be a combine or harvester anyway. Traditional, heavy duty, tractors and farm machinery are required for bulk crop production on single level, land/soil based farming methods.

The multi-level/tiered, hydroponic wall systems being effectively 'indoor' (loosely) won't/cannot use big harvesting machines, it will instead be done as a conveyor system, with rail mounted, lightweight electrically powered harvester 'heads', that will also serve as seed/plug drills for planting and transplanting. All powered by the sun, which as discussed, provides the Earth with as much energy as we're *willing* to be bothered to capture.

Based at sea, these multi levelled food/energy farms are presented with other opportunities. Kelp is highly nutritious, as is algae, both can be farmed to provide nutritious and ecological human and animal feeds, as the farms would be afloat, the large area underneath the structure, will also be used as an organic fish and Kelp farm and nursery. Sea water will be vaporised with sunlight concentrated thousands of times, to provide electricity, fresh irrigation and drinking water and salts and minerals for crop fertiliser...all at once.

We can also use the energy collected to fracture sea water, and produce Hydrogen and Oxygen (or HHO too) should we decide to utilise that combination for power. Pipelines would be constructed, to carry fresh water using H powered pumps, or electric. Produce can be ferried by H or electric powered ships or pipelines based on Maglev technology...even solar dirigibles/blimps with electric engines could be used.

Oil does not have to enter into the equation at all. Required materials can be made from nanomaterials, ecological Hemp plastics, which have many advantages over oil based plastics or a combination of the two.

Think less about how to achieve the changes with our *current* methods, and more about how we can accomplish what we need to, using smarter, cleaner and better options.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Live in Asia for three years, the CHinese kind; And then reconsider your proposition or at least title of supposed worth.

Good luck. I for a Man am opposed to your propostion, at least.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I tell you friend... I have no care of what texts you have read or summised in papers.

You have to experience before you even attempt to judge.

And when you judge and not observe, always remember; 'Ye so shall be judged', 'k?

\



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
A clue might be found in the food that companies believed by some to have ties with the Bilderberg Group—Heinz, Knorr, SlimFast and Best Foods, among others—produce. Dr. Stanley Monteith, an expert on world food supply, points to the vast amounts of man-made chemicals in the food on our local grocery-store shelves, aspartame for example. Dr. Monteith explains: “Aspartame is a chemical made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. And it breaks down into formaldehyde, eventually into wood alcohol. It produces all sorts of problems, mental problems, and it impacts on literally every organ in the body. They know this, there are extensive animal studies that show this, and it never should’ve been put into our food.” The FDA, which some believe is colluding with big business, states that an average-sized person can safely metabolize the formaldehyde and other chemicals in aspartame unless he exceeds the acceptable daily intake set at approximately 21 cans of diet soda.

Even the water from our taps could be used as a weapon by the Bilderberg Group. Dr. Monteith reveals that the government “fluoridates the water in about 68% of our cities. And 90% of them use something called hydrofluorosilic acid, which is a product they get out of the chimneys of plants that produce fertilizer. Hydrofluorosilic acid is so toxic that you can’t put it into a toxic dump without paying a great deal of money. They will not allow you to put it into a river because it contaminates the river. So they put it into our drinking water to poison our people. And they know what they're doing because fluoride limits fertility, just as aspartame limits fertility. It's part of population control.”

Population control could be the best way for the Bilderberg Group to gain control of the globe—a smaller population is a more easily led population, with a reduced chance that a rebellion or revolution could thwart the aims of the Group.

Do you really know what is in a vaccine?
(Reuters/Landov)But it's not just our food that the Bilderberg Group may have thought to use as population control. Conspiracy buff Alex Jones may not have the high profile that comes with repeatedly posing nude in Playboy magazine, like noted anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy, but regardless, he believes that vaccines could be the vessels through which the Group might thin the human herd. Jones says the Bilderberg Group wants “a planetary dictatorship so they can carry out their forced depopulation agenda, and they want to do it through the medical system. And that’s why vaccines are so important. We know that many of these vaccines turn out to have serious adverse reactions and this is being done by design. They kill you slowly over time. That’s why they’re called 'soft kill.'”

Jones offered no evidence of this alleged plot and the Bilderberg Group has a policy of not commenting to the press. So it’s hard to tell if Jones’s claim is mere speculation or has a basis in fact. However, Dr. Rima Laibow, a physician who actually treated a member of the Bilderberg Group and was privy to some of its darkest secrets, concurs with Jones' warnings about vaccines: “In a very short time, not today, not tomorrow, but very soon, we’ll be facing compulsory vaccination under the mistaken term of ‘voluntary vaccination.’”

Dr. Laibow points to the dangers of squalene, an organic compound used in vaccines to stimulate the immune system and increase the response: “If I inject you with squalene, your immune system will start to attack the squalene but then start attacking all of the parts of your body. What does that look like when you meet a person to whom that is happening? It looks like Gulf War Syndrome. It looks like every joint in the body is swollen and intolerably painful and immobilized.” Although studies have shown that squalene, aspartame and fluoride are harmless (except for people with rare, genetic anomalies), Dr. Laibow claims that those whom the squalene doesn't outright immobilize or kill would be rendered infertile, just as through aspartame and fluoride.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by spaznational
reply to post by spikey
 


You made some excellent points about WAFLE. The overpopulation concept is based upon some rather outdated economic theories.

The real issue is market efficiencies and delivery of the resources. Getting the WAFLE to where it needs to be utilized can be difficult. The world has a food surplus and yet people do starve. But, to your point, it is NOT due to excess population.

And more to the point, who do these overpopulation-expounders suggest to decide who should be "reduced?"


Thanks spaznational,

For me, the question of 'who's for the chop?' is playing right into the elitist hands...these people have lots resources at their disposal and regularly use psychology as a control tool. (iow, hope it's not me and my family, implies it will be some other family instead)

Cheers.



Well, I think it is a question that will naturally arise when people believe in the overpopulation theory. I think opponents of this theory (such as myself) must also ask this question, rhetorically, if we're to have a good argument.

The answer is, of course, that NO ONE can be allowed to make this decision. Depopulation is immoral and based on a false premise.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Wow, you people don't get it.


Your culture must survive.

Forget the alures of other culures only if they serve your country under even nefarious means; Bit like how bilingual recruited,

By whim: the USA of course.



edit on 22-4-2011 by ChristianMentat because: just editing



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchaicSubrosa
Don't worry droogie the rich were nice enough to fund a bunch of prison camps that we can throw them in. I guess its better then shallow graves.



Take note.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by antinwo101
 

Fantastic post and very informative. Depopulating us and dumbing the masses down by putting nasty chemicals in our food and water is something I've suspected for a long time. Your post is the first post I've seen on this forum that summarises succinctly and comprehensively the evidence that I find so compelling. This neo-malthusian depopulation-agenda has probably been going on right under our noses for a lot longer than we could ever imagine as we all continue with our daily lives blissfully unaware that we are being chemically castrated. From what I've read about aspartame it's essentially little more faeces from genetically-engineered bacteria and the FDA refused to put into the food-supply until their hand was forced by Donald Rumsfeld. Aspartame and fluoride are the opiate of the people: whose function is to keep the populace hypnotically distracted and easily pliable. Tentatively, you can add DDT to that list as well. Granted, it's not put into our food, but from the evidence I've read, it was banned under shaky grounds.
edit on 22-4-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The only thing we have in abundance is doubt and fear.

We don't have the ability to implement change whether it is needed or not because we have been defeated before we begin. We are fundamentally flawed.

Men are no longer born as much as we producing lumps of clay to squeeze into the mould of a working component of this machine. It doesn't work for everybody but it is ok there is always someone to take your place.

The earth is not overpopulated the machine is well stocked and can continue to make room for itself to grow. We just have to understand that as humans it is what we allow ourselves to believe and how we allow ourselves to act that keeps us moving forward regardless of the impact we have.

Our values are defaulted and that keeps trust honor and dignity to a minimum and we remain in a semi conscious state of denial. The leaders we elect are not chosen to lead by example but to set an example for us to follow.

Maybe this topic would not be an issue if we could get our priorities straight. I would like to believe there is hope for us but...






edit on 22/4/11 by M3T4LH34D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
With the radiation issues in Japan, is the following possible to achieve NWO population reduction:

Radiation Immunity, for the elite in a vaccine or antidote; the rest of the 80% die from radiation poisoning and starvation. With genetic modifications and research gone rampant, could Chernobyl workers who suffered no ill effects DNA be used to create the vaccine/antidote for radiation poisoning (the movie "I am Legend" kinda of stuff).



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 





I understand that you fear population cull might be an NWO agenda, and you want to provide evidence to demonstrate why we need to fight them in this. I'm with you on that! I don't want a global holocaust either. However, what you're proposing is actually an increase in global population and I'm struggling to understand why.


So you need a little more proof, ok read this for starters, it will shock you to get a sniff of the real truth......................I hope you don't live in the states.


edit on 22-4-2011 by CouncilOfNine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


For me, the concern is not how many people this planet can support, but rather, what will 7 billion people do when the so-called financial experts destroy the world economy. If we were to suddenly find our store shelves empty we would all run into the woods and kill anything and everything to eat it. There would be mass extinctions in a matter of days. Well, that's what I fear will happen.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 





This has to be one of the most arrogant, self-righteous posts I have ever read. Quite possibly delusional. I don't know what else to say but.......wow.


So what you are saying is because I feel that I know a few things that others don't, because I have spent so much time researching and reading a multitude of various subjects about our existence that I am delusional?
Who here is the arrogant one.............I think out of the box, I open my mind to the possibilities that there is more to life than the average person believes, and you ridicule me and call me arrogant.

Maybe if more people did the same this planet would not be in the position it is at this point in time If you want me to post some of my thoughts on reality here then I will be happy to, I will try and condense it as much as possible but you will still be in for a long read .........do you think you have the attention span??



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nathan-D
 





I'm not so sure. The smaller the population, the easier they are to control. I don't believe their goal is to 'perpetuate their pyramid scheme', but rather to simply maintain control over us. And the smaller the population, the easier they are to control.


Why, I dont think so. The dumber and poorer the population, the easier to control. Large population is not so important, in fact, the larger the population, the more resources and money the elite has, so it is harder to defeat.


Maybe you should read a little more instead of assuming your thoughts are correct.



The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines ) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides", Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand.

For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" often solicits a slide response with many people. (Springmeier has co-authored three books on trauma-based programming which detail how the Illuminati employs highly tuned and extrememly sophisticated Mind Control (MC) training programs that begin the programming process while the intended victim is still within the womb. Mind Control is a much greater problem than most people realize. According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra.

The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of the Montauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming 'Centers' in every major city in the U.S. )





Depopulation The purpose of 9/11 was not only to justify two illegal wars but to indoctrinate the People with the mindset that Terrorism is our new challenge and no one is safe. This is all part and parcel of the New World Order where the People have no rights and are in fact slaves to the ruling elite.

Depopulation is a key part of this plan. In the immortal words of Prince Phillip: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation," Philip told Deutsche Press Agentur in August 1988. "Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S.”

“Berdahl served as president of Texas A&M University before coming to Berkeley. During a presentation about his case, Chapela revealed that a spermicidal corn developed by a U.S. company is now being tested in Mexico. Males who unknowingly eat the corn produce non-viable sperm and are unable to reproduce.”





In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the Illuminati agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows: "A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages.

In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population. There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist.

The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."

edit on 22-4-2011 by CouncilOfNine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


Speaking of energy and wealth, don't you find it really odd that the environmentalists have kept the owner of a gold mine from mining his own land in the Yellowstone region? This would keep more gold from entering the world system, where the Rothschilds have hoarded most of the world's gold reserves.



Why is that 'odd' for environmentalists to be concerned with mining operations?

Mining operations are incredibly destructive to the environment. Environmentalists tend to be concerned with the environment.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I would tend to agree with the OP that earth's current human population isn't yet to the point of what might be considered "over-populated"; however, it's also quite possible that we may not be too far away from that point. My thoughts on why there are some places where people are so desperately poor and packed in like sardines in a can is simply because the entire earth is rather like a macrocosm of a large city and its surrounding suburbs. All during recorded history you see the same patterns of human living - even in the days when the entire world's population was a fraction of what it is now. It seems there are always going to be the poor packed into the slums (or scattered in run-down shacks) and the middle class in moderate housing and the wealthy in nice, spacious homes, regardless of whether they live in cities or are in rural areas.

I really don't know what the answer to that might be, even if there is one, since no society ever really seems to be free from such class divisions even if they try really hard. Of course, the danger of such trying could end up turning into a communist/socialist society which always fails in the end.

As others have said there are large swaths of land that are difficult or impossible for humans to live on (a great example can be seen in Japan; people as individuals and as societies have taken great risks when living in zones prone to natural disasters, and always have been) from the get-go (like deserts, tundra, etc) or they present a large amount of natural dangers. You will never have large populations in severe deserts (California and Nevada aside, which are already having water problems, and the only reason they got as far as they have is due to once abundant water supply diverted from other areas - so yes sometimes there can be high populations in deserts but only if they manage to have a water source they can utilize), tundra and places that have challenging topography and weather patterns because these areas will simply not ever support much in the way of large terrestrial animals like ourselves.

I would say that we could do better (as the op has suggested) with the resources that we do have and how we use them, and make more efficient use of things and waste less, in order that the current population might have less division between the haves and have-nots. But, and this is a big "but" - this is a really slippery slope that can lead to very dangerous ideas like eugenics, hard-core socialism and genocide. You can try and make things better but you can't (unless you want to try and run rough-shod over peoples' individual rights, which is never a good thing) really force people to have only a certain amount of children, use only certain resources or not use them, etc, unless you want to have your own little brutal dictatorship.

There really is no compelling reason why any couple should have more than 2 or 3 children, religious beliefs aside. In the olden days (more than a century ago) infant mortality was very high and it wasn't uncommon at all for children to not survive to adulthood due to diseases (actually, I suggest that we did/do have predators - not in the traditional sense but infectious and to a degree inherited diseases have "thinned" the human "herd" quite well in the past). So if a woman gave birth to 9 or 10 children, she might be lucky if 3 or 4 survived to maturity and created their own families. In today's world with good sanitation and medical care infant mortality in most industrialized countries is very low, so there's really little need to breed hard to try and keep up with the toll taken by pathogens on human life. Things are of course a bit different in many third world countries, but still despite all these ills they seem to be able to keep their populations up quite well, even if the quality of life is abysmal.

So yes I think we could do better to maximize what we have and make better use of resources for the people that are here now, but I really don't see why we should deliberately try to increase our population to more than what it is now.



new topics

top topics



 
162
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join