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.

 

Regarding the Alleged Conspiracies of Global Government and Depopulation

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Two issues often cited by by conspiracy theorists as agendas of an alleged "global elite conspiracy" are those of world government and population control. In reality, these are both simply obvious developments, given the progression of technology.

After global communications and global mass transport came about, there was nothing that could happen than for the economy to become globalized. After the economy was globalized, there was nothing that could happen but for the state - an entity existing solely for the purpose of solidifying and propagating the existence of a ruling class through the medium of economics - to become global. Even basic economic theory teaches that the purpose of the state is to provide security for the economic system, and obviously there was no state before there was economics.

Population reduction follows a similar pattern. A multitude of factors, all directly tied to the progression of technology, have provided conditions for unprecedented and absolutely out of control birthrates in third world countries. There simply is no more room to grow food, and a large percentage of the world is living on mainly rice as it is, while doubling their numbers every generation. It makes absolutely no sense that this can just go on indefinitely. What happens when there is no more rain forest to cut down, and there just simply is no more room to grow soy and corn? The chaos caused by the starvation and riots and cannibalism and everything else that a global starvation would entail would almost certainly collapse the system entirely and kill almost everyone on the planet. So population reduction, at this point, is simply a necessity.

Obviously there is also the fact that we do have a bunch of "useless eaters", as it were, producing nothing and consuming much, and there are clearly deviant type individuals in positions of power who get off on the concept of wiping them out, but their particular psychological states are irrelevant to the actual reality situation. We may look at these individuals as filling a necessary role, within the system, and either taking on that type of deviant psychology because of the role itself, or assuming the role because they already possess that type of deviant psychology.

If we are to take the conspiracy theory to its ultimate end, the whole thing becomes entirely circular and there is no clear purpose or point to it: "they" would had to have created the technology in order to create a world government, and then in the process created the population problem which they needed the world government to solve.


realitysituation.com...

We keep talking in circles about this alleged "secret elite", and people have said a whole lot of nonsense, but there is thus far no evidence that they actually exist. All we can point to is people with a lot of money, who behave as people with a lot of money have always behave - that is, with little care for the smallfolk.

So if absolutely everything that is happening on the planet can be explained without needing to postulate a global conspiracy of elite manipulators, why do people insist on believing it exists?

Let me state that there are most certainly "conspiracies" taking place - the government fakes wars, puts fluoride in water, hides cures for diseases while creating new ones, blows up buildings to blame it on Muslims, etc. - but all of that can be explained within the basic paradigm of the functioning of a economic system where everyone has something to gain and something to lose.

Wouldn't it be better if we just looked at reality for what it was, rather than mixing the truth with outrageous nonsense? A big part of the reason that the mainstream refuses to look at the important FACTS presented by the alternative media is because they all insist on mixing them with FANTASIES regarding this alleged evil global elite conspiracy.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by andreoutlaw
 


I have two words for the coming Depopulation Wars: Neutron Weapon's Technology and Directed Energy Technology.

The simpler and cleaner way to solve the overpopulation problem.

You not only kill the body, you cremate the body so that it doesn't lay about creating plague.

It'll be over before you know it.....if you happen to be one of the survivors.

Otherwise, it'll be over and you won't be aware of anything.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


That's seven words.

Did you read the post?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
It's never a secret. Here's a slideshow for you. Study those images well. Some are just too lazy to look. They want the answers given to them. Never learning anymore. Sad.

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20020803223606/[/url]



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by emberscott
It's never a secret. Here's a slideshow for you. Study those images well. Some are just too lazy to look. They want the answers given to them. Never learning anymore. Sad.

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20020803223606/[/url]



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
The favourite method of debunking and ridiculing realities - label them as "conspiracies" - imply that they are FANTASIES instead of FACTS.

See how it works?

At this stage of the game, believing everything is chalked up to "economics" is simple denial. Sorry.
The richest families already own the majority of wealth. And yet it is relentless, they want MORE.
Answer what it is they want and you'll see the evil.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Presumably they want to do what they have been conditioned since birth to do, which is control.

But what about the issues I raised in the thread? Does see a way that we could have had global transport and communications and not had that result in a global economy, which would result in a global government? Is there an argument against this assertion I've made here? How is it a conspiracy, if it is simply an obvious progression of a society determined by technological development?

What about population control? When will it be too many people? If we have finally cut down all of the rainforests on the planet to plant corn and soy, will there then be too many people? Or is it believed that it is impossible for there to ever be too many people on the planet, and anyone who says differently is necessarily working for a secret evil elite conspiracy that wants to hurt people for no reason?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by andreoutlaw

Wouldn't it be better if we just looked at reality for what it was...


What is it?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by emberscott

Originally posted by andreoutlaw

Wouldn't it be better if we just looked at reality for what it was...


What is it?




Everything is obvious. There is no need to postulate fantasies about secret evil people. That is like a child imagining monsters under the bed when he hears a noise. It is naive. There is no other place that society could be than where it is right now, given the progression of technology. It isn't a conspiracy.

If you disagree, then tell me where and we can discuss it. I have laid out many different points here that you can state your objection to, if you are objected. I think that world government and population control are a good place to start, since the factors involved are so blatantly obvious.

Again, I am not saying that the government and various other institutions of power are not using conspiracies to get things done, merely saying that all they are doing is what is necessary to sustain and progress the present system we all exist within. The only thing you can argue with is their means of doing so, viz "we need less war and more propaganda". Arguing over the necessity of the changes makes zero sense.
edit on 8-2-2012 by andreoutlaw because: dyslexia, lol



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I, for one, have never bought into the whole mass depopulation theory crap. To me it's pretty simple:

The elite are elite because of their power. Power obtained and maintained through financial means. Money that that made off of average citizens. No money, less power. Less people, less money.

No people - no money- no power.

Doesn't add up to me.

Not to mention that any kind of chemical attack or physical detonation would also put at risk all of their own family members, but more importantly -- their puppets. Can't control the strings if the puppet gets cut loose.

And to argue that they will all be shipped to "safety" before the depopulation "event" is even sillier IMO.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by andreoutlaw
 


The opening paragraph focuses on the "state," assuming the only viable state is the nation state.

NEWSFLASH: Global government revolves around Corporate States, not nation states - and the largest corporate conglomerates have WAY more cash than any nation. Way more power too. Plus, they're not constrained by silly restrictions like Civil Rights for their employees either. At best, they might need to follow a few national laws in their various locations.

Successful employees get with the program, keep their mouths shut and hang on to their jobs.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   


So if absolutely everything that is happening on the planet can be explained without needing to postulate a global conspiracy of elite manipulators, why do people insist on believing it exists?


First, you haven't demonstrated that "everything that is happening on the planet can be explained" at all. In fact, there are a lot of contradictions in this thread.
Your source material implies that there is no conspiracy, that it is all happening out in the open. This is where I disagree, and there exists much, much data to support the fact that is in NOT all out in the open. There are hidden agendas as well as not so hidden agendas to,
1. depopulate certain areas of the world where resources are coveted,
2. make secret payments to dictatorial governments to insure brutal control over their populations,
3. dumb down the people through the school systems,
4. suppress cures of diseases like cancer to insure the profits of huge pharmaceutical companies,
and on and on and on.

Your source material seems to suggest that it is out in the open AND necessary AND all a necessary evolutionary and economic necessity. Bull #.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by andreoutlaw
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


That's seven words.

Did you read the post?


That's because when they use either Neutron or Directed Energy Weapons, you will only have time to read two of the seven words.

It's that fast.....and painless.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by andreoutlaw

Originally posted by emberscott

Originally posted by andreoutlaw

Wouldn't it be better if we just looked at reality for what it was...


What is it?








If you believe what you say and are willing to stand by those convictions, then why seek to expand or reinforce with debate. Are you unsatisfied? Is there something lacking in your perceived concepts of the world around you?



"Arguing over the necessity of the changes makes zero sense."


And yet here you are. Now there is a reality situation. You assume technological progress, yet you still enjoy the wheel.Strange.



"Everything is obvious."


Relative to the observer.



"There is no need to postulate fantasies about secret evil people."


Fantasy in regard to your perception, secret to you.



"That is like a child imagining monsters under the bed when he hears a noise. It is naive."


Imagination, ah yes, the strange ability to perceive and conceive, the mental ability to fathom a road map of progression. Take that child blind but not deaf, having been isolated from the wilds of the jungle its entire life, into the jungle to hear the sounds of the wilds. Will it not hear monsters that it can not see? Of course it will. Until it is cajoled into believing what it hears are simply the normal sounds of the natural world around and assured there nothing threatening about. How naive the child is.



"There is no other place that society could be than where it is right now, given the progression of technology ."


True, given the course it has taken. The question is, is this the result of a natural course or an unnatural course for your society. You see, while you praise such glory in the miraculous achievements in your 'progression of technology', you neglect the your histories miraculous achievements accomplished without your present state of 'progression of technology'.
Still the mysteries abound.



"It isn't a conspiracy."


Why isn't it? Or could it have been done without conspiring?



"If you disagree, then tell me where and we can discuss it."


I do, I am making clear. You have your eyes viewing the world about and I have mine eyes to view the world about. So unless your intention is to alter my perception, discussing it serves no real purpose.



"I have laid out many different points here that you can state your objection to, if you are objected."


I have no objections. I engaged out of misunderstanding is all. I accept that. I felt you were looking for an answer, I chose to save you the time of reading through the histories and point you rather toward where it is all heading and from where.



"I think that world government and population control are a good place to start, since the factors involved are so blatantly obvious."


Factors?



"Again, I am not saying that the government and various other institutions of power are not using conspiracies to get things done, merely saying that all they are doing is what is necessary to sustain and progress the present system we all exist within."


If that is how you feel, then you will not be in disharmony with the road map ahead of you. Those who feel to the contrary will be in disharmony. Who is more right you or them? Who is to dictate? Delegate? A majority?



"The only thing you can argue with is their means of doing so, viz "we need less war and more propaganda".


Where we to argue or discuss? I choose more war less propaganda. For the record.



"Arguing over the necessity of the changes makes zero sense."


Change is inevitable. How change occurs is sometimes determined by necessity and sometimes not. Arguing with another over necessity makes zero sense. It is the individual that decides what is right for their self. I am sure it is why some monkeys live in a metaphorical jungle and others live in real jungle.

You see the only true necessity in a monkeys life is, in order;

1] Breath air

2] Ingest water / discharge excess

3] Ingest nourishment / discharge excess

4] Propagate / obsolete. Species is abundant
4.a] foster your young

5] Shelter self if necessary


But again I might be misunderstanding.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I, for one, have never bought into the whole mass depopulation theory crap. To me it's pretty simple:

The elite are elite because of their power. Power obtained and maintained through financial means. Money that that made off of average citizens. No money, less power. Less people, less money.

No people - no money- no power.

Doesn't add up to me.

Not to mention that any kind of chemical attack or physical detonation would also put at risk all of their own family members, but more importantly -- their puppets. Can't control the strings if the puppet gets cut loose.

And to argue that they will all be shipped to "safety" before the depopulation "event" is even sillier IMO.


Money is becoming less and less relevant. The whole paradigm is collapsing completely in the face of the technological system. Most people in the world do not produce more than they consume, so they are most certainly without benefit to any alleged rulers of the system, and a drain on the system itself.

I am not arguing that there is no plan for depopulation - that is a documented fact that no one can really argue with. What I am saying is that it is not a secret, and it isn't "evil". Obviously there are too many people, and they are continuing to multiply exponentially. This is plainly totally unsustainable, so something is going to need to be done about it. Either you have to sterilize people, implement birth laws such as China has, with forced sterilization, or you are going to have masses of starving people and food riots all over the world in the coming decades.

This alleged "secret evil elite" is simply doing what is necessary to guide the planet into the inevitable future. That isn't to say that they don't get off on it in a sadistic way. That may or may not be the case - the evidence of the Satanic cults, such as Bohemian Grove are proof enough that some of them do - but whether or not they are enjoying the idea of culling the population does not change the fact of the matter, which is that the population must be culled in order to avoid a total breakdown of the entire system. It might in fact be considered that these people develop the Satanic cults because of the position they have, not the other way around. But the question is academic, as the answer would have no effect on the hard reality of the situation.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by andreoutlaw
 


The opening paragraph focuses on the "state," assuming the only viable state is the nation state.

NEWSFLASH: Global government revolves around Corporate States, not nation states - and the largest corporate conglomerates have WAY more cash than any nation. Way more power too. Plus, they're not constrained by silly restrictions like Civil Rights for their employees either. At best, they might need to follow a few national laws in their various locations.

Successful employees get with the program, keep their mouths shut and hang on to their jobs.


Yes, you are beginning to grasp my point here, perhaps. Although I don't really see much logic in drawing a sharp distinction between nation-states and corporate-states, given that they ultimately amount to the same thing, the key difference being that the corporate version tends to be more efficient. With the ubiquitous development of public-private partnerships though, and the way that the same individuals move between the political and corporate worlds through this revolving door, I don't really view them as any longer identifiable as independent entities. Not that the distinction has ever been particularly sharp. Look at the East India Company or Dutch Royal Shell. Or the Rockefeller family.

But you are correct in stating that the manner through which the state is being globalized is through economics. Which was an original point stated in the OP.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join