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.

 

Gates Foundation Depopulation Summit Demands Global Approval

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Thank you for the link, and the video which are more corroborating evidence to what these people want.

Many members and myself have been trying to show these facts, and the more people are shown what this is really all about the better chances we will have to stop these goals the global elites want.

Not that long ago i also posted a video of Ted Turner calling for world depopulation by 95% and how among other things such as giving vaccinations to people with mercury and Thimerosal in the vaccines. Ted Turner wants to FORCE governments in the west into implementing a one child policy like in China, despite the fact that Ted Turner himself has 5 children.

Here is the video.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Other plans these evil people have include to make it legal for parents to murder their babies even if they have no health or mental problems.


The Intel Hub
By Alexander Higgins
February 28, 2012

A paper recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people.

A paper in the The Journal of Medical Ethics, an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics, argues that murdering newborn infants should be legalized.

The rational? “Infants are not people”.
...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are many other people in power who want for these horrible things to become legal and to be implemented.

President Barak Obama appointed as his science czar John Holdren, a known advocate of eugenics, and President Obama himself has stated to elder people that they might be better taking the pill instead of getting more expensive treatments, or operations which doctors think could help them, but which are not "economically viable."



There are examples like Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg admitted that abortion is about getting rid of certain types of people that the elite do not want to have around:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we dont want to have too many of."

futurestorm.blogspot.com...

The world's elites are not even afraid to admit that they want depopulation, and population control.

Many of these people, and institutions are the same ones who created the German eugenics program.


Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat

John Harlow, Los Angeles

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of Americas wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

These people hide behind the claims that "they are doing it for the good of the world", but the truth is that they are using lies, and exagerations only to further their own agendas, which do not include to help mankind but rather to have us under their control.

Some of the new advocates for population control, such as Oprah Winfrey, are probably not aware of the real agenda behind all of this, but who knows maybe they are aware and they don't really care.

The eugenics movement is alive and well today, and it is hiding behind the claim that they are just trying to help mankind, and "save the Earth".


edit on 12-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Concerning...


The Intel Hub
By Alexander Higgins
February 28, 2012

A paper recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people.


Proof or it didn't happen... I tried finding said paper published in the Journal Of Medical Ethics, yet it could not be found, following your links.

So what I have to go on is some jack wagon from The Intel Hub, paraphrasing something in which he probably pulled out of context. Please stop using these sources... it's getting real old trying to take anything you present as truth.



In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg admitted that abortion is about getting rid of certain types of people that the elite do not want to have around:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we dont want to have too many of."


Again, the same story... something pulled out of context, as well as paraphrase fear mongering rhetoric. It sites an 'anonymous' party!!! I mean cmon!




JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.


She's talking about the importance of population growth, and interactions between individuals and medicaid. Being in support of it, and expressing concern about people appearing to not being concerned with population growth. Which, if you watched the video I presented, you would realize is very real.

Is the following true
"In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg admitted that abortion is about getting rid of certain types of people that the elite do not want to have around:"

Certain types, or access to abortion and concern for population growth. This doesn't claim that she wants certain types of people to die... being planned by the elite.




JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.

Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.

I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.

futurestorm.blogspot.com...

She said the choice is for women to make, not the governments!!!

I can't believe this crap... I can find similar fear mongering rhetoric through out many of your posts that is taken completely out of context, using crap sources that pull things out of context... You're almost too much to keep up with, seriously. The consistency in your changing letter size, applying bold to 'out of context' quotes, and other techniques... coupled with your consistency in posting disinformation is becoming too much. Please, just stop...

It's also unfortunate that your link to the Times article doesn't work...




SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.


This implies, exactly what I've already said... education and health!!! Along with what Ginsburg said about politics



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Wow, there's even holes ALL over the OP!!! Seriously, this Occupy rhetoric is just more crap!!!!

I don't know if you work for these people, just think there's the biggest conspiracy in the world... but there's very real, ethical, important people in this world working towards the sustainability and prosperity of future generations!

Look... yes, there are individuals who advocate for population control, there are individuals who understand the simple mathematics of it, they understand the necessity for us to actually address this issues. Many of these individuals also state that there are many political issues getting in the way of allowing individuals to CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES, many who advocate for EDUCATING the public, and promoting HEALTH.

It's not a bunch of Elitist sitting around claiming that they have to go and force people to kill their children... this is madness.

This, 'out of context' rhetoric is getting a little crazy... Lets see the actual original articles, the original words of these individuals... removing some individual grabbing a sentence at a time, pulling it out of context and then completely misrepresenting what was said!

You must get tired of doing this... O wait, just the opposite... it's much easier to pass on what another person said about another person saying something, that choose to already put spin on it for you. Then, to even go and add more spin to it!

Madness! You're not helping one bit. This is EXACTLY what is WRONG with most Occupy supporters(source of article)... they can't actually argue a damn thing, it's just reiterating what some 'hell bent on destruction' individual said about a sentence! Again, which was pulled out of context.

I don't even know where to continue from here, lol! This is just sad... why do you do this?
edit on 12-7-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: Spelling error



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


What are stupid senstationalist heading and OP. The artcile exposes next to nothing, other than the fact the Gates foundation is sponsoring responsible family planning in developing countries with booming populations, STD epidemics and a lack of resources to provide for and protect their own populace.

It tries to make it seem as if the Gate foundation is preparing to murder the enitire developing world using condoms. What are they going to strangle everyone to death with Latex? What is the problem with educating people about safe sex, contracetption and responsible family planning? I could imagine the Vatican would be against it, but we already know religion defies any rationality and logic.

This OP = Stupid, sensationalist propaganda.

If Bill Gates really wanted the developing world to die a painful, misreable, death then the Gates foundation wouldn't fund humanitarian assistance, sanitation programs, food aid and medical care in Africa. Moreover if the UN is some elite Globalist venue hell bent on killing off the poor, explain why they fund humanitarian assistance, provide food aid, shelter refugees in camps and work with NGOs to try give these people a better life with what little resources are provided to them by rich developed states such as the US.

Use your brain instead of buying into any senstaionalist conspiracy theory you read on the internet. You are no better than the so called "sheeple".


I don't agree with a single word that you said!!!



I just thought it needed a second posting, lol... Thank you for accurately assessing the situation! Unlike every star that the OP has received!



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   


Many members and myself have been trying to show these facts, and the more people are shown what this is really all about the better chances we will have to stop these goals the global elites want.


Interesting... so I was correct when I said...




I don't know if you work for these people, just think there's the biggest conspiracy in the world.


Who are these members, and are you paid?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017

Proof or it didn't happen... I tried finding said paper published in the Journal Of Medical Ethics, yet it could not be found, following your links.


You didn't try very hard... It took me a minute to find it... BTW, the original link worked when I posted that thread, in case you didn't know papers are from time to time moved around...


J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411
Law, ethics and medicine
Paper


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy


2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call after-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

jme.bmj.com...



Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
Again, the same story... something pulled out of context, as well as paraphrase fear mongering rhetoric. It sites an 'anonymous' party!!! I mean cmon!


Originally when I posted that the link worked. Now, don't blame me because you can't do a 1 minute search for the paper...



Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
She's talking about the importance of population growth, and interactions between individuals and medicaid. Being in support of it, and expressing concern about people appearing to not being concerned with population growth. Which, if you watched the video I presented, you would realize is very real.


No matter how much you try to sugar coat it the truth is clear for anyone to see...


...
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. ...


No matter how much you TRY to justify her statement, it is clear what she says...



Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
Certain types, or access to abortion and concern for population growth. This doesn't claim that she wants certain types of people to die... being planned by the elite.


No, she says that there are certain types of people she, and the elites, since she states "WE" don't want to have too many of...



Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
I can't believe this crap... I can find similar fear mongering rhetoric through out many of your posts that is taken completely out of context, using crap sources that pull things out of context... You're almost too much to keep up with, seriously. The consistency in your changing letter size, applying bold to 'out of context' quotes, and other techniques... coupled with your consistency in posting disinformation is becoming too much. Please, just stop...


Of course you can't... you have swallowed whole the lies and seem to agree with depopulation...

The one who should stop is you...

BTW, if you are going to claim I post something out of context, instead of making such a claim PROVE IT... Otherwise you are just talking out of the rear end like you always do...

edit on 12-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

These two, alongside the world elites, should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity, but of course as long s they hide behind "we are doing it for the good of all and mother Earth" they will be free to continue with their depopulation plans...


Right here. There is NO mention of depopulation. Do you understand what the term means



to reduce greatly the population of
Depopulate

This is NOT stated in the OP. It states that rate of growth should be controlled. That is a HUGE difference.



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Not that long ago i also posted a video of Ted Turner calling for world depopulation by 95%


Bull#. He did not call for a 95% reduction. He stated it would be about right to have 2 billion. The idiot on the video is who said "95%" and started talking about Nazi's like a fool. Ted said one child per family. You need, on average, 2.3 to replace the population within a given area. Having one child would reduce the population in a generation. Ted said it would take 100 years to get to 2 billion. Seems about right to me, seeing as not everyone would follow it.

Where is this Nazi sterilization, 95% nonsense? Only the idiot filming the video is talking about that. He's a liar.


Are you sure you want me to continue?

I can pick apart much more that you lied about.
edit on 12-7-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant

What are stupid senstationalist heading and OP.


Very funny...
Very funny indeed when you can't even properly back your argument with evidence except to use ad hominems and strawmans.

Such tactics does show the mentality of the people using ad hominems, which is that you lack the intelligence to properly corroborate any type of intelligent argument.

Now, get the hell out of here unless you are going to write something intelligent...

And about Bill Gates wanting population control... The following video has been posted SEVERAL times.



At about 4 minutes 35 seconds Gates claims and I quote...


"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
...

tv.naturalnews.com...

But you are going to claim he is not advocating population control?... Get the hell out of here...

Not only is Bill Gates advocating population control to reduce the population by at least 1 billion people through vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, etc, but he is also advocating the lie/scam that is anthropogenic Global Warming...

Next time, before you claim someone has to "use their brain", make sure you know what the hell you are talking about...


edit on 12-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Quit your nonsense NOW!

MANY are advocating population control. It's the most ethical thing to do at this point.

You want another to add to your list?

I'M advocating population control.

If you can't see the reason by now, you are truly blind.




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
...
Are you sure you want me to continue?



Go ahead and try... I am not scared of you...

Again, instead of making CLAIMS that I lied, prove it, or shut the hell up...


BTW, your idol is not advocating to reduce the population through vaccines, etc?...


"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
...

tv.naturalnews.com...

Get out of here before you embarrass yourself any more...



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You have yet to refute any of my claims.

I'm not going anywhere while you're mixing up a bunch of hooey.

Look at the term above.

Do you have the intelligence to add, subtract???

6.8 billion today (really 7 billion) up to 9 billion. That is a 2.2 billion increase. They are trying to CURB THE RATE OF GROWTH.

THERE IS NO CALL FOR DEPOPULATION IN THE MENTIONED TEXT.

Again, to make this uber clear for the cognitively impaired. 9 billion minus 1 billion is 8 billion. 8 billion is greater than 6.8 billion.

NO DEPOPULATION> LOOK AT THE DEFINITION!!!

Don't try to mix things up again. I will continue to call you out.

Get your math, and terms correct, else be known by this point on as someone incapable of basic reasoning.
edit on 12-7-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

You have yet to refute any of my claims.

I'm not going anywhere while you're mixing up a bunch of hooey.



What claims? about him saying anything about population reduction?... Do you have some reading comprehension problem?...

Folks, it seems that the elites have made sure to infiltrate some of their people in these forums, trying to refute the crimes their masters are, and want to keep committing...

edit on 12-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Apparently, you are too dumb to see that I've already done this.



Ah, so that is your evidence attacking the poster and using insults?...


Learn to read...


"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
...

tv.naturalnews.com...


edit on 12-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Okay, I see I'm dealing with someone who simply is incapable of understanding that the RATE OF GROWTH is what will change, and NEVER an actual decline in the total number in this scenario.

If the total number NEVER decreases, there is NO depopulation regardless of a decline in growth rate.

If you can't understand this, seriously, I suggest you go back to school.

Urghhh, it's frustrating trying to reason with people like you.
edit on 12-7-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


So first you claimed that he is not talking about depopulation, and now you are trying to twist what he said to fit your agenda?...

AGAIN, nice tactics ATTACKING THE POSTER instead of learning how to properly debate...

If you are going to continue such tactics, STAY OUT OF THE THREAD... It is that simple...

Let's break it down for those who are trying to twist what their masters are saying...


(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit


Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

You can watch this yourself at:
www.naturalnews.tv...


Reducing the world population through vaccines
This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says "if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower (world population) by 10 or 15 percent?"

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...
...

www.naturalnews.com...

Gates is not talking only about reducing population growth, but reducing the population itself...

Gates gave a formula in which people, services (which includes FOOD, clothing etc), energy per service, and CO2 per energy unit, and he states CLEARLY that one of these numbers must be lowered to near zero... He includes the number of people as something he sees might have to be lowered to near zero... But you go ahead and keep trying to defend your master...

BTW, how in the world do vaccines, alongside other services, reduce the population?... He admited this himself...

edit on 12-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Okay, I see I'm dealing with someone who simply is incapable of understanding that the RATE OF GROWTH is what will change, and NEVER an actual decline in the total number in this scenario.


I think some people are more invested in the drama - - then any logical reality.

Kind of like those who protest abortion clinics - - - but do nothing to alleviate the growing problem of abandoned or unwanted children.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I think some people are more invested in the drama - - then any logical reality.

Kind of like those who protest abortion clinics - - - but do nothing to alleviate the growing problem of abandoned or unwanted children.


Woohoo, here comes the calvary to provide no actual argument except to attack the poster...

Heck, how about you all start what your masters want and reduce yourselves from this Earth?


PLEASE DO IT!!! I dare ya...



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I defer to the decent members of ats to see the lies clearly displayed and called out.

There is no reason attempting to debate this further.


Actually, I'll adress your last point, because it's super easy.

An increased standard of living via increased health and productivity. That leads to a lower birthrate, naturally.



Do you honestly not comprehend that, or do I have to take your hand and walk you step by step through it?
edit on 12-7-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join