Fiendish or foolish - macro perspective

So I am sitting in my family room sipping a glass of water and staring into it wondering exactly how much fluoride is in there when it occurs to me: why go to all the trouble of putting chemicals into the food we eat, the water we drink, the air that we breathe, and injecting them directly into us with no way of tracking the effects? There are always general conclusions that can be assumed, but what about real information? It would take a massive system of electronic medical records to be created with data on virtually everyone to be of any value. Of course you wouldn't need to track the data until it was necessary or of value for a particular goal. Then ram Obamacare down everyone's throat by telling them it will lower health care costs and make it available to everyone, including illegal aliens. They jump at the dangling carrot and what do you know, electronic records of names and addresses of illegal aliens no one else could find, along with everyone else. Shove chemicals into people, then make them pay for the lab work to diagnose the damage that was done, and all you have to do is sit back and wait for the test results to come in... When the cattle are sufficiently dosed take them to market or put them to work in the fields, whatever suits your needs at the time.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

They obviously have no interest in using us for our labor anymore except maybe to maintain the service industry so they can bleed a few more dollars out of the economy. I honestly think we are being put out to pasture. I once read that most of the chemicals they put into other things were waste products that were costly to dispose of properly, so they just feed them back to us. That sounds like propaganda to me, but who knows, there could be some truth to it. Another possibility is to give us enough diseases so we die at 65, just young enough to avoid our collecting too much SS or putting too much strain on the medicare system, or maybe they do it as a passive mechanism to reduce our rate of reproduction. Whatever the reason is, if we continue to sit back and let the world be controlled by a tiny handful of people, we are laying our own necks across the chopping block. I wouldn't be surprised if a hatchet falls at some point.

Let us say 70 million people die tomorrow. That is but 1% of global population. So let's say 700 million died over a year. That too is but 10% of the population. Depending on which "10%" dies, it would not affect the overall global system functioning.

Like after world wars, in fact it would boost the system in time. So there is a point when we realize 7 billion people is an enormous number, and it would be no easy task to remove even 10% of that population in a controlled manner.

This tends to make me think if this is a goal then it requires planning and massive technological capability and is slated for decade like cycles imo. I do think it is a priority, at some point, because human over population given the limitations of global management and the general invasive lifestyle of the species, is indeed affecting the life system negatively and unproductively. Meaning it is people, not animals, who are slowly killing the life zone.

But at the same time it seems nature has self protective devices that are not even tapped yet. And imo the elite institutional network "organism" has indeed been wondering and researching on the matter, because if they do not beat nature to the punch, they may very will be in a truly uncontrollable situation. But I could be wrong.

What I am not wrong about is the part of the curve from 7 to 10 billion people. If that is not forced into normalization, the entire possibility of building a manmade global device to check this expansion will also be lost, imo. Meaning if left to a full century we will never see 15 billion people, earth would normalize "the virus". But if they lose this next decade to begin full global positioning of this system (and its global administration) for the next two decades, imo, they will not be able to control the outcome reliably.

Thus when David Rockefeller said this much for sure:

This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long...

We know population is but one of the possible "powerful forces" that could abort the mission. But not yet; as some state, the cows in themselves are not a problem now, they are herdable, so the depop necessity is probably many years down the road in this "opportunity". People are aiding the process, and until they are no longer aiding it, but contrary, then expect actions to control human population, and by that time from a uni-polar global power system. Meaning global destablization and multi-polarity is not allowing such a true agenda from being enforced yet anyways, and even if it was, imo, it is a huge job requiring a number of years. But they need people to build the system to that point, so people have "job security", until of course the job is done, then it is anyones guess, but it seems likely something will equalize the system, one way or another.

At the same time I am sure to elite systems "the less the better", whether in people themselves or their deeper understanding of what is really going on. I don't think they have a "global retirement" plan in how people may interpret that phrase on first hearing, but I do tend to think they do have a "retirement plan" overall. Or just let it devolve into global population chaos uncontrollable, and I think the choice they will make is for control of the situation, prior to better global management.

But those are just my speculations. Human management itself is a hazardous job.