Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Prince Charles Openly Endorses New Draconian Population Study

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Was it really? The point I was trying to make, is that the reason that none of this will come to pass, is because the laws that are already in place, prevent it. And these are laws that no apparantly just society would EVER think of redacting from the statute books, and they certainly wouldnt be able to do that with public support. In fact, even if you told most people that for every day that these laws remain, a puppy would be stamped on till dead (which I would hate, because puppies are awesome, cuddly, funny, and wonderful) most people would still vote to keep them, day after day, month after month, and year after year.

It doesnt matter what "guide stones" (honestly, someone been smoking something odd around here? What the hell is that about?), random think tanks, members of monarchy, or even politicians think of it. If the people of the planet cannot be convinced, then its not going to happen, because if it were tried, the people instigating the change would get butchered and made into street art in about twenty four hours, give or take an hour or two for the gap filling adhesive to set.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Yeah you just agreed with me.

The laws in place are not the reason the guide stones will not be seeing use, but I guess you could take that route.


As for the rest, the problem is a growing number of people actually support this.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Honestly, what is this utter and complete nonsense about "guide stones" ? Did I miss something? Did Merlin show up while I was away from the thread and erect a totem or something?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
if this article is true, why does charles think he has authority to control the population and private lives of people in africa, china, or anywhere else in the world.

what gives him the right to decide if another man wants or has a son or a child.

what is it his business if a man in an african village has 7 kids. is he feeding them. is he providing them shelter.

the answer is no, that tribesman hunts his own food and feeds his own kids. if not the other members of the tribe or village help.

and helping the u.n. to buy the u.n. slop they throw into pots that you see on t.v. doesn't give anybody the right to start depopulating. those people are refugees running from war that are being fought to take natural resources to european markets.

stop funding warlords and pillaging africas resources and maybe you wouldn't have to throw u.n. slop at women and children because their husbands would be feeding them instead of riding around in a pick up truck with a mounted .50 cal on the bed.

or dying trying to prevent the destruction of his village and family.

if he wants to start sterilizing people, do it in his own country and his own subjects.

i'm sure all his subjects in the u.k. would appreciate all second born children being killed and mandatory sterilization of women and wives after their first kid.

future king of england, good luck. he's not my king.

edit on 18-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Being a brit who takes pride in their intelligence, I suggest you use it and read the thread if you want to know what the context of my posts were. I did not bring them up, as you can see in the first post of mine you replied to.

The Georgia Guide Stones are actually pretty interesting, look them up. It is worth a glance at the least.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Wow...

I knew it was only a matter of time until we started to see the call for this. Population reduction is part of TPTB little plan. Less people equals less resistance.

I am sure they are just waiting to release the super virus krakken.

Star and flag.


-SAP-



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


After a bit of research I have come to a conclusion about the guide stones. No, they arent pretty interesting. What they are, is a pile of old waffle, that has even less importance than the drooling halfwitted ramblings of the founder of the Mormon Church back in the day.

People actually pay attention to this crap? Honestly?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


No, we haven't had an update on the Guide Stones since uh.... since they were built. In general the only ones that pay attention to them would be the alphabet boys if I remember right.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I think on food stability the solution is pretty straight forward. We keep advancing our techniques of aquaponics, and other artificial ecosystem designs. We decentralize big-ag towards self sufficient communities that can grow their own food in twisting, greenhouse skyscrapers that can withstand harsh weather conditions.
edit on 18-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This one family uses more manpower and resources than any other family on the Planet.

Prince Philip said in an Interview that he would like to come back as a parasite to wipe out mankind, " I thought" wake up mate you already are one.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agarta

I see it is based on over population and resource limitations which is still up for debate in a lot of cases.

It's not up for debate. People might deny it. It's a serious problem that will catch up to us soon.

Aldous Huxley in 1959 analyzed the numbers, and determined it would be in 50-100 years where we would start to feel the pressures of overpopulation. Every single one of his predictions came true so far. He even accurately predicted the population at the turn of the millennium. Saying the population was going to more than double from 2.5 billion to 6 billion in that short of time was a pretty bold prediction.

Overpopulation is actually the greatest threat to our freedom. I'm not going to explain why here, but I guarantee that it is.

I would prefer to do something a little immoral about overpopulation now, than something extremely immoral in 40 years.

Don't deny what I say til you read this

edit on 18-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Agarta

I see it is based on over population and resource limitations which is still up for debate in a lot of cases.

It's not up for debate. People might deny it. It's a serious problem that will catch up to us soon.

Aldous Huxley in 1959 analyzed the numbers, and determined it would be in 50-100 years where we would start to feel the pressures of overpopulation. Every single one of his predictions came true so far. He even accurately predicted the population at the turn of the millennium. Saying the population was going to more than double from 2.5 billion to 6 billion in that short of time was a pretty bold prediction.

Overpopulation is actually the greatest threat to our freedom. I'm not going to explain why here, but I guarantee that it is.

I would prefer to do something a little immoral about overpopulation now, than something extremely immoral in 40 years.

Don't deny what I say til you read this

edit on 18-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Thats why they have wars to keep the population down, don't worry another worldwar is on its way and then we won't need to address over population till 2070



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


I said debate because although what you said and linked is thus far true there are ways around the situation that show we are not as over populated as people think. It will take a shift from the hive mind and the proper use of technology in order to show this though. Just in the United States there plenty of areas that can be populated and grown upon. The problem, as I see it, is, the common mind feels the need to congregate in small areas not to spread out into smaller communities. Agriculture has been used as an example many times to show that the food supply can not keep up with the demand and thus we must be over populated. The problem with this is the agriculture process currently used. With a shift into multilayered green houses smaller amounts of land are then needed for agriculture. There are ways around the perceived over population problem but the mass would rather remain in the downward spiral we are currently in instead of using the technology we have at hand to over come it. It's about the change of a mindset being refused that keeps us on the path we are currently on.

So you see, there is debate. I personally, while growing up felt that each person should have one child. That means that a couple would have 2 children. This was my plan, unfortunately after 2 marriages, I had one child with my first wife(on target) but my second wanted 2 children in our family. So In order to give her what she wanted I went over my believed number. Things change.

What is the answer? I do not know but it is really about the mind set of the people. If it is commonly accepted that a couple has 2 the population remains the same(some will not make it and some will have more) but the current mindset in many minds is large families stemming from a time gone by. We need to make changes in our minds as a people to the accepted family size to alter the current situation we are in. If I am not mistaken the current average in the United States is 2.5 children per household. This is an acceptable growth rate if the mind set of living communities and agriculture are altered.(IMO)

Edit to add: I also see it as a problem that places are passing laws that limit the peoples ability to grow their own food even in the capacity of a small garden. It seems as though, "they" want us to support business rather than ourselves, but that is a whole other conversation.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
What the heck is with all of this "we" and "global" and "initiative" and "central" and "international" and "standard" and "average american" terminology?
edit on 18-1-2013 by streetfightingman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by streetfightingman
 


It all falls under the word SUSTAINABILITY.
Look it up. This is the word that those in the know are using to let the others know they are in the same club and working towards the same agenda.
To get you pointed in the right direction, look up Forum For the Future.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Having taken the time to read the report this "news" is based on, I'm not even sure why it is newsworthy.

The report says the world should...
a) have less children
b) lower consumption in the rich countries

...to which the Prince says this is an "urgent and timely reminder".

So, why the "draconian" sensationalism?
To me it looks like common sense.


Well because this place is populated by a large amount of paranoid individuals that look for a conspiracy in every single news item.

China limits the number of children people can have other countries will have to do the same.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Less population = less rats in the maze = less crazy behaviour - - - and the problem is?

Have people thought that by feeding the millions in African camps, they are keeping the females just above 10% body fat?

Males, sitting around with nothing to do, so they copulate. No birth control hence more in said camp.

If the females were permitted to have their body fat drop to below 10%, they would not ovulate. Bottom line. Withing 1 generation, there would actually be less in these camps.

But it's much more humane to trickle feed them so that they can breed up to increase the number of people in misery.

OR

Assist with artificial birth control and get the same results. Less people living ............... strike that,..................... existing in misery without the need to starve a generation of females.

Yeah, Charles definately has the wrong idea here. To all of those who will jump up and down about his concept, do you agree with millions starving in these refugee camps? Do you agree with dropping the body fat of females below 10%?

If so, then your humanitarian arguments, imo, don't hold water.
If not, then isn't artificial birth control a humane way to go?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by streetfightingman
What the heck is with all of this "we" and "global" and "initiative" and "central" and "international" and "standard" and "average american" terminology?
edit on 18-1-2013 by streetfightingman because: (no reason given)


In order, when one is discussing a scenario which involves a group of people, of which one is a part, then the collective can be called "we". Its strange, but thats the way that word has been used for some time now, and since we have all had a while to get used to it, I think it might be an idea if we (OH NO!) all settled down just a little.

Sometimes it is necessary to speak of the whole world, or something which affects the whole world. At times like these, we use the word global, to signify that we are not talking about something which only effects one or two locations on it, but has planet wide consequence.

Initiative is a word which is used in several ways, but in this instance an initiative is a plan of action, which seeks to achieve a specific aim.

When one wishes to speak of the way administrative power is distributed across a nation, often it is necessary to point out that power seems to be drawing itself toward the capital city, toward the government, rather than outward toward the people. Centralised then, would seem to be a good bit of terminology, and central also works that way.

Also, lets face it, if you know a better way to explain that what you are talking about concerns all or many nations, then I would love to hear it. But in the mean time, the word international seems to fit quite well.

I fail to see also, the problem that you have with the word standard. Assuming we are not using this word to describe a battle banner, then we must be using it in place of the word normal, or average, and sometimes to describe a certain level of attainment in whatever field.

If you are having trouble with the words average American, I imgaine life must be a right pain for you. I mean, this is basic English comprehension.

In all seriousness though, These are all perfectly acceptable words to use. How one decides to interpret those words, and how much one agrees with the premise which is being posited by thier use however, those are down to ones own intellect and political persuasion.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I didn't get through the whole post yet, but can I just state the obvious?

If eugenics is part of this study, the blue bloods and their inbred genes should be the first to go.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe
Less population = less rats in the maze = less crazy behaviour - - - and the problem is?

Have people thought that by feeding the millions in African camps, they are keeping the females just above 10% body fat?

Males, sitting around with nothing to do, so they copulate. No birth control hence more in said camp.

If the females were permitted to have their body fat drop to below 10%, they would not ovulate. Bottom line. Withing 1 generation, there would actually be less in these camps.

But it's much more humane to trickle feed them so that they can breed up to increase the number of people in misery.

OR

Assist with artificial birth control and get the same results. Less people living ............... strike that,..................... existing in misery without the need to starve a generation of females.

Yeah, Charles definately has the wrong idea here. To all of those who will jump up and down about his concept, do you agree with millions starving in these refugee camps? Do you agree with dropping the body fat of females below 10%?

If so, then your humanitarian arguments, imo, don't hold water.
If not, then isn't artificial birth control a humane way to go?


Africa was bountiful till we destroyed it, India was bountiful till we destroyed it. Charles should shut his mouth and stick his nose in history book.

His ancestors' no mine not yours and not the Africans are to blame for the whole world mess.

Bankers destroy the money and we look to these idiots for the solution, British Royalty stripped the world bare and we are listening to his views on what we need to do.

This Fcker had to have a woman give birth and raise a son' just to dress him. countless woman had to give birth just so they can have a calvary, countless a couple of hundred woman had to give birth just to look after this one family and all their houses.
And we should listen to this Nannygoat on how we are using the worlds resources and overpopulation.

This prince' the man who has did nothing all his life and now in his 60s' this guy has waited all his life on a job, (longest apprenticeship in history).

He suggested we all share a bath' how about you all share a house instead of having numerous castles and houses.

They own houses castles flats etc all with full staff and we have people sleeping on the street.

I will never listen to this guy and certainly not on making the best of our resources.






top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join