New World Order Exposed by Australian Politician in Parliament.

page: 7
95
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



Let's do a rough account of the earth, and her people - shall we?

Approx. 75% of the earth is covered in water. 25% available as land.
7 Billion people on earth.

Of that 25% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 24% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.

And yet we face a population crisis?

The real answer is we face an infrastructure and governance crisis - not a resource crisis.
The technology is there, we have it - but it takes corporate profits to step aside to get that technology in place and working. THAT is the problem.
The rest of this is made up malarkey.


So do you believe that humans are alone on this planet then?

You provide a very good example of the anthropocentric idiocy that is destroying the fragile ecosystems on this planet.

Contending that overpopulation is about space is sheer stupidity.


Excuse me? Why not explain your position instead of launching insults and trolling?

This, ladies and gentleman, is the hallmark of a non-contributive post meant to inflame and troll.
Bravo!

To answer your question - if you had even BOTHERED to read to the end of my post (or comprehend, I'm not sure which you couldn't accomplish) - my post was illustrative of the fact that the argument of "over population" is a misnomer to describe the issues that face humanity.

However, somehow I believe that was over your comprehension level, attention level, patientence level, or all of the above.




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarsSentinel
May I ask of the room a simple question (with no subtext, it's really a question):

As I move around my part of the world, I am constantly crowded. Traffic. Traffic. Traffic. Lines. Lines. Lines. Gas is up. Food is up. Rent is, as we know, "Too Damn High". It feels to me like we are all very, very crowded. Seven billion people. Yikes!

So, as a general rule, would it not be better to have fewer people if we could do it humanely? I mean, without starving or murdering anyone, would we not have a cleaner, safer, more spacious and vibrant life if there were only 1/4 the people?



How in the world can it possibly be a good idea? How do you propose reducing the population without murdering anyone? Who makes the decision on who is to be in the "reduction boat"?

I am just jawdroppingly dumbfounded as to how anyone but a genocidal madman can say let's kill 3/4 of the world population because it is really the moral thing to do, as if they are somehow better than the other 1/4.

I have no respect for anyone proposing the reduction of the population unless they want to be the first to step on the boat voluntarily!
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: editing



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by MarsSentinel
May I ask of the room a simple question (with no subtext, it's really a question):

As I move around my part of the world, I am constantly crowded. Traffic. Traffic. Traffic. Lines. Lines. Lines. Gas is up. Food is up. Rent is, as we know, "Too Damn High". It feels to me like we are all very, very crowded. Seven billion people. Yikes!

So, as a general rule, would it not be better to have fewer people if we could do it humanely? I mean, without starving or murdering anyone, would we not have a cleaner, safer, more spacious and vibrant life if there were only 1/4 the people?



How in the world can it possibly be a good idea? How do you propose reducing the population without murdering anyone? Who makes the decision on who is to be in the "reduction boat"?

I am just jawdroppingly dumbfounded as to how anyone but a genocidal madman can say let's kill 3/4 of the world population because it is really the moral thing to do, as if they are somehow better than the other 1/4.

I have no respect for anyone proposing the reduction of the population unless they want to be the first to step on the boat voluntarily!
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: editing


I agree, genocide is horrible. However, I don't see anywhere in the post you're replying to that says anything about genocide or murdering anyone. In fact, MarSentinel went out of his (or her) way to say that nobody should be murdered! Humans are smart. I'm sure there would be a solution if governments agreed that a reduced polulation were in the best interests of everyone. Just off the top of my head there are lots of ways to reduce the world population, like maybe pay some people to not have children? Maybe give substantive tax breaks to those who choose to have only one child, but not making it mandatory of course.

I can totally understand your feelings toward genocide and murder, but don't put words in people's mouths. In fact, based on your blatant misunderstanding/ ignoring of what the original post says, I'm wondering if you even bother to read the entire post before replying.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Again, depopulation is not the answer.
The answer is addressing the INFRASTRUCTURAL and GOVERNING issues that come along with increases in population.

Our technology is so advanced that yes, we could easily feed, cloth and house 7 billion people in comfort while caring for the ecological care of the Earth. In one of my earlier posts, I illustrated (despite lack of understanding by some) that as of right now, we occupy less than 1% of the 25% available land on our Planet. That is not even taking into consideration the technology to build at Sea or terraforming technology to utilize the other 75% covered by water.

This is what makes this whole depopulation NWO / Globalist conspiracy theory so hard to believe. They don't want to kill us. That makes no sense. What they MAY want to do is change the way we do things by removing your individual rights and liberties to accomdate everyone on Earth. This concept is called Communism (or Socialism depending on who you talk to). The OP is essentially disclosing that things like Climate Change / Global Warming and AGENDA 21 are really Communist programs meant to usurp your individual rights and liberties for the "Greater good" by creating false alarms (Global Warming, Over population) etc.

Over population doesn't exist. The Earth is well suited to hold twice as many people as currently inhabit it.
There is so much unused land in almost every country it's not even funny. The resources are also there.
You want proof? Load up Google Maps (Satellite Mode) or Google Earth and start cruising around all the Earth and just glance at the open space available. The entire argument is ridiculous.

What IS a potential problem is our infrastructural ability to provide (housing, food, clothes, and labor) for the people we currently have. Capitalism is failing. Economies are failing. The Economy is the driving force of our infrastructure. If the Economy fails, everything stops.

Economies are driven by good Governance. Obviously our Governance is failing. THIS is the root of the problem.

The sooner people pull their heads out of the sand and stop blaming our problems on these so called made up "Crises" and start focusing on the REAL problems - Economy, Infrastructure and Governance - we will continue to survive.

However, sadly, these things aren't as cool as the "Go Green!" "Man made Green house gases" "Climate Change" "Over population!" scare tactic themes that scare people into doing meaningless things that actually contribute negatively to the real problems we face.

And...maybe that's the "plan".
edit on 5-2-2013 by zeeon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Although she is an elected official, this wasn't presented to Parliament. It was presented at the Lord Monckton Launch in the Adelaide Convention Centre on February 2nd 2013.

A photo of the parliament chamber can be seen on their website: www.aph.gov.au...

Like everyone else who speaks about such things, she is probably speaking to people who already know about it - and have no power to change it.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Just finished the video. I'd like to take a chance to offer a synthesis between the two opposing extreme sides....... Cont.


That sir, is a very eloquent way of summing this up!

Very intelligent post, all of it.


I don't have much to add other than....

Is the current human condition and the way we allow ourselves to be controlled, the only way our species can survive? Like an ant colony that serves it's Queen.

Although we know better, although we know it's wrong, subconsciously do we really think this? Do the majority subconsciously ignore this seemingly obvious state of affairs because that's how humans survive and expand? And those that are aware (other than a very few), do they subconsciously 'choose' not to act to change it?

Although we KNOW better, within our minds.... our actions tend to differ from our knowing.

I would like to think not though, and I take heart from people who do try to highlight these grave issues.

S&F



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If you don't think Agenda 21 is creeping in everywhere then why has my little town of 50,000 people signed on to it? It's all very nicely packaged and sounds like things everyone could benefit from; clean air and water, social justice, stopping pollution but it's a shell game where they take the damage one industry creates and move it to a 3rd world country for cheap labor and a complete absence of environmental protections to maximize profits.
Tell the people in Beijing how great Agenda 21 is if they can hear you speaking through a gas mask. It's just one more scam to centralize profits and control in the hands of a few globalists who get away with it because enough people believe their lies.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   



I agree, genocide is horrible. However, I don't see anywhere in the post you're replying to that says anything about genocide or murdering anyone. In fact, MarSentinel went out of his (or her) way to say that nobody should be murdered! Humans are smart. I'm sure there would be a solution if governments agreed that a reduced polulation were in the best interests of everyone. Just off the top of my head there are lots of ways to reduce the world population, like maybe pay some people to not have children? Maybe give substantive tax breaks to those who choose to have only one child, but not making it mandatory of course.

I can totally understand your feelings toward genocide and murder, but don't put words in people's mouths. In fact, based on your blatant misunderstanding/ ignoring of what the original post says, I'm wondering if you even bother to read the entire post before replying.


My original question stands, How do you propose reducing population without killing anyone? Oh I see, make everyone destitute and then throw them a bone (some money to live off of) to get fixed....great idea


What makes your right to have children greater than anyone else's right? Your financial portfolio?

That is elitism at it's finest! I personally believe that people should not have more children than they can care for (2-3 being optimal), but it is not something anyone has a right to mandate.


@ zeeon I respectfully disagree, I think that is exactly thier plan. The only people the globalists care about is thier 1% because they view themselves as inherently superior to the other 99%. When robotics reach the point that they can do ALL the jobs currently done by the 99% there will be genocide on scales unheard of because we will have lost our "usefulness".
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: clarificaion
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: clarification
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: typo



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by omega man
 


Interesting, thank you for finding this.
I do appreciate these kind of things being shared!



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DevilsApprentice
 





Is Gina ( Australians should work for $2 ) Reinhart paying for "Lord" Christopher Monckton, the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to speak on 5aaa as mentioned in this little agenda vid @2.01 ?

very good point. Obviously it is in Gina's interest to undermine the green movement and thats as far ahead as she see's it. Her business interests are her priority of course. You could safely expect most primary industries to rally against A21.
An "elite" like gina working against club of rome elites demonstrates the factional nature of "TPTB" and that agenda 21 is not supported by all "elites".



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by MarsSentinel
May I ask of the room a simple question (with no subtext, it's really a question):

As I move around my part of the world, I am constantly crowded. Traffic. Traffic. Traffic. Lines. Lines. Lines. Gas is up. Food is up. Rent is, as we know, "Too Damn High". It feels to me like we are all very, very crowded. Seven billion people. Yikes!

So, as a general rule, would it not be better to have fewer people if we could do it humanely? I mean, without starving or murdering anyone, would we not have a cleaner, safer, more spacious and vibrant life if there were only 1/4 the people?



How in the world can it possibly be a good idea? How do you propose reducing the population without murdering anyone? Who makes the decision on who is to be in the "reduction boat"?

I am just jawdroppingly dumbfounded as to how anyone but a genocidal madman can say let's kill 3/4 of the world population because it is really the moral thing to do, as if they are somehow better than the other 1/4.

I have no respect for anyone proposing the reduction of the population unless they want to be the first to step on the boat voluntarily!
edit on 5-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: editing


You know how you reduce the population without murdering anyone? You reduce birthrates. Which is happening all across the developed world with no coercion necessary. As countries move into the middle class birthrates naturally decline as people gain access to contraceptives and large families no longer become a necessity. Large families are needed in the developing world, where children often die young and parents need their children to take care of them as they age.

The US now has a declining population, as does Russia and Japan. None of these countries had to instate a one-child policy or forcibly sterilize anyone or murder anyone. Progress leads to plateauing populations and this is a good thing. And it's a good thing too when western countries spend resources helping the third world control their populations (and HIV).

I'm all for fighting the banks, and centralized control of the world and government secrecy and wars, but fighting against common sense family planning and a reduced population as a result of developing the developing world backwards and extra paranoid. I will gladly volunteer for that, and so does anyone who puts on a condom or takes the pill.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   


As I have said in various ways over the years, ATS and the Internet for that matter is brimming over with "Boob-Tube Educated Closet Geniuses" who have been raised like "Veal" in the Cities and really don't know much of anything first hand except for maybe what is required to work a job, drive to and from that job and getting out into nature for them is a trip to the park or beach where they sit and walk around like the cattle they have become.
reply to post by MajorKarma
 

So on that note what makes you qualified to speak on Australia or any other american posting here. US v Australia completely different countries that word "Commonwealth" still means something you know.
It means our institutions and common law are anglophile not like america. Neither is our population mix or or social class mix like americas which you seem to be presuming is the same. In this country we are still fortunate enough to have a generous welfare state unlike the US which libotards like yourself would like to completely destroy.
Your own post is high lighting you re own point that it is actually you whom is one of these boob tubers yourself ! Hahah nice 360 loop fail
edit on 5-2-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Prefer this fellow
edit on 5-2-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: stupid link system



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by omega man
 


I hate to be that guy.. but man, put a little effort into your threads. We shouldn't have to read 2 pages of threads find something worth commenting on. You should display your thoughts in the OP and pose questions, etc.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Theprimordialocker
 


reply to post by Theprimordialocker
 


Yes I like Jeremy Lees approach to educating .



.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I prefer Social Credits any day to big end of town Right Wing libertarianism might be good for US too!

btw apologies but reason for double vids I really cant get chrome to add vid links properly.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Ann Bressington replied to my email today. I have given her details about registering an account to join the conversation. Time will tell.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   


Ann Bressington replied to my email today. I have given her details about registering an account to join the conversation. Time will tell.
reply to post by ozzieman
 

nice work. thank you.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
All this agenda 21 talk is bollocks in my view. If the elites were really about reducing population why would they instruct western govs like Australias to have high immigration.
I don't know about most of you but Ive lived Sydney, Melb and Brisbane massive immigration numbers have not stopped in any of these cities is infact increasing. Sydney is so full of Asians especially one could be forgiven for thinking they were in some chinese city.
Big business loves high immigration thus why they keep talking about some bs imaginary skills shortage.
None of these facts support the case for this agenda 21 otherwise they would be trying to reduce immigration not only into Australia but all western nations especially from third world nations however they are not which only makes me think its major bs being pushed by rightwing Libotard americans and the occasional brit UKIP supporter.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: felt like it
edit on 6-2-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: felt like it





new topics
top topics
 
95
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join