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.

 

Pop Control And Covert Sterilization.

page: 1
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+21 more 
posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 10:17 AM
link   



"15,000,000 Americans Defective, They Say”

Gigantic Eugenic Enterprise Organized for Sterilization of Unfit of Nation



Does the depopulation agenda (and covert sterilization) have any basis in objective reality?

Bit difficult to watch at the beginning but there are some revealing agendas and tactics being discussed below in a 1969 document from the President of Planned Parenthood to the head of Rockefeller's population council (including putting sterilants in the water supply).

Also exposed is the editing out of legitimate scientific data from old TV programmes.


2:05


Apparently 'population control' is a naughty word these days but there's also relevant info at the link below describing how the U.S. Gov secretly used Bill Gates Senior's Planned Parenthood and Rockefeller's Population Council as a cover to do their 'dirty work'.

Raymond De Souza discusses the Kissenger report below and there's more info at link about Peru, Uganda and India.






The Kissinger Report also specifically declared that the United States was to cover up government population control activities and avoid charges of imperialism by inducing the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations—specifically the Pathfinder Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) and the Population Council—to do its dirty work.

Exposing Global Population Control



Another pretty informative one below from Corbett showing how, in their 1968 annual report, the Rockefellers discussed the need for vaccines which also reduced human fertility - there's also lots of creepy Gates investments discussed which have the potential to facilitate an unelected technocratic dictatorship.




See 9:05




Overt at the time but the vid below also discusses forced sterilzations used on American citizens - also examples given of Nazi eugenic IQ questions and more info about Rockefeller origin here.




U.S. Forced Sterilization Factories.




Articles:


• Rockefellers Funded Eugenics Initiative to Sterilize 15 Million Americans.



Some people are still under the impression that the Rockefeller Foundation is all about philanthropy: helping people and saving lives. Those people are Bill Gates and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

In reality, the Rockefellers have been one of the largest financial backers and drivers of the eugenics and the depopulation agenda for over a century now.


Newsclippings



• Brutal sterilization campaigns and men 'forcefully vasectomized'.



Rockefeller organized the Population Council in 1953, predicting a “Malthusian crisis” in the developing world and financing extensive experiments in population control.

..the Ford Foundation worked with USAID to tie development aid to “contraceptive acceptor targets,” i.e., numerical quotas. Ford Foundation money, coupled with pressure from the Population Council and USAID, culminated in an era of unbridled aggression in the area of government-sponsored “family planning” and incentivized a brutal sterilization campaign that forcibly vasectomized 6.2 million men and killed at least 1,774 during the 1970s. 


Bill Gates and the Myth of Overpopulation



• Recent London summit coincidentally held on the 100th anniversary of the first International Eugenics Conference in London.



The project is called Family Planning 2020 (FP2020), a campaign devised at the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning by the British government, United Nations, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Philanthropy’s Global War on People


edit on 5-4-2021 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Considering the info (and documents) above and the fact that the Rockefellers 'profoundly shaped' the World Health Organization.



The Rockefeller Foundation (RF), the unparalleled 20th century health philanthropy heavyweight, both profoundly shaped WHO and maintained long and complex relations with it



And considering the Rockefellers (in conjunction with Chase) now own over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the U.S.



The Rockefeller empire, in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase), owns over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the United States. It is the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world.



And considering the Rockefeller's intimate connection to the corporate media and their extremely close involvement with the TC and CFR.



Not many people know that our mainstream media networks are owned by less than 5 multinational corporations, and all of these corporations have ties to the Rothschild and Rockefeller families..

lini



Then is it really out of the realms of possibility that the Rockefeller family haven't given up on their eugenic depopulation ideology and are still engaged in a covert campaign of mass human sterilization?

Not to sound alarmist but when it comes to forcefully imposed 'injections' into the human population then I think the question is a pretty fair one.




Crypto-eugenics - definition:

"They had to pursue a strategy … called “crypto-eugenics.” In essence, “You seek to fulfill the aims of eugenics without disclosing what you are really aiming at and without mentioning the word.” This is how the Eugenics Society conceived of its funding for the IPPF.

– Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population


edit on 5-4-2021 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: karl 12

S+F for putting all this together. Good thread.

No I don't believe they've stopped.

Even back in 2010 when I was in school, I had to take a sustainable development class where we focused on sustainable economics and such. The entire premise of the course was that our current population size and growth based economics are bad, the world population needed to be brought down to no more than 1 billion people and our entire growth based system needed to be removed.

Then we had some discussions about the best way to reduce the population etc..

Yeah...it's really not a conspiracy theory. There's a large number of people out there being taught and who truly believe the world would be better off with 6 or 7 billion less people and actively think of ways to reduce the number of people.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: dug88

I'm thinking we likely had the same curriculum.

I personally believe that the world would likely offer a better quality of life if there were strategically less people; but I don't agree really with any methods of how we'd ever achieve that.

Here in Canada it isn't so crazy, save for the 7ish big cities that are really exploding.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

Even back in 2010 when I was in school, I had to take a sustainable development class...


Appreciate the post Dug and didn't realize they were teaching it in schools - when it comes to the origin of that term then thought some really valid points were being made in the interview below regarding the 1992 U.N. Rio Conference.

Wasn't that surprised to learn that it was first popularized by author Gro Harlem Brundtland who wrote it as economic policy for David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission (of which she was a member).


38:00


As for Malthusian pseudoscience then really did think this was a good article and also a very relevant one below about 'charlatan' Paul Ehrlich.





link



edit on 5-4-2021 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

I dunno, maybe, that was part of my ecological restoration degree program.

That whole part of the program was weird. We started getting all these contract teachers from SFU and stuff and a bunch of former government biologists and such.

For the course I mentioned above in particular, we were lumped in with people from a bunch of other programs, everything from engineers, to nurses and accountants.

We had another course, the principles of sustainability that was similar more discussion based and theoretical though and an ethics course where we were basically taught anything can be ethically justified.

I really disliked that last year of school and a lot of people I went to school with were disillusioned by it.

The whole thing was weird, it was a brand new program that was part of restructuring of the school itself in a joint effort by SFU, sponsored by global organizations that fund that kind of stuff.

The focus shifted that year from, learning how to mitigate corporate pollution and learning to do things that could actually help the planet, to learning about humans are literal cancer that should be purged.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Excellent OP karl 12. We are living it (or dying it?) right now as we speak, the grand agenda as it were. 500 million in perpetual balance with nature. Using vaccinations ( genetic modification) to sterilize women and make people susceptible to other viruses which then trigger cytokine storms is very devious and likely the most evil thing we've ever seen on a large scale. Scary times indeed.
edit on 5-4-2021 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dug88

Crazy! Mine was at DAL/Kings and I did a journalism focus so totally different curriculum over all, but we had to take a sustainability and sociology course that sounds pretty similar. This was in 2009.

Notably, and weirdly, it focused mainly on India in almost every example for why populatuon needs to be controlled.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

Yeah, I think there was a concerted effort around that time to have programs like that pushed into schools all over. Unlike the rest of my program, the content we were learning wasn't actually produced by our teachers or at the school. It was part of some 'global curriculum' #.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Thanks mate - not gone into it too much but when it comes to this thread then some interesting info here about the individual behind the domain name and his ties to the Council On Foreign Relations (and the Rockefeller foundation).




posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

I'm glad I didn't get anything like that while doing my graduate or undergrad degrees. It was all content that was pertinent to my chosen field of study. I do believe that this has been going on for some time now, however I think the agenda may have hit a small snag with China. Unless of course there's some sort of method that will be utilized to curb growth in that area since they've repealed the 1 child policy. I could see the current climate leading to a war that would remove a good portion of the population of that part of the world, China, India, etc. however unless they have other controls in place it will rebound fairly quickly.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: dug88

I'm thinking we likely had the same curriculum.

I personally believe that the world would likely offer a better quality of life if there were strategically less people; but I don't agree really with any methods of how we'd ever achieve that.

Here in Canada it isn't so crazy, save for the 7ish big cities that are really exploding.


Canada is most certainly NOT overpopulated and for that matter neither is the world.

City's ARE but that is because people go were people ARE they do not want to be in an empty world, only the anti social and the anti human DO.

How would less people be better, less genetic dynamism and a far greater likelihood of humanity becoming extinct not to mention if a little green man is looking down on our planet with envious eye's less humans would be exactly what he would want and given that they probably have immensely longer life spans if they can travel the stars they are able to work over a greater time frame - if.

It was correctly pointed out that scientific study proved the planet could sustain with PAST agricultural techniques over one hundred billion people in comfort, that today we produce MORE than enough food to feed the entire world but most of that is aimed at the first world nations with the most developed economy's, if we use hydroponics modern sustainable agriculture, ban Bayer/Monsanto's soil and insect biodiversity destroying pesticides and poisoned fertilizers and GM crop's and go back to healthy food, save the infinitely valuable heritage variety's they have declared corporate war against and pour even a fraction of the state money we do into weapon's instead into food production then?.

Less people mean's less consumers, slower rate of scientific and technological development (And a vast likelyhood of slipping BACKWARDS in these human endeavours as well as the arts), greater chance of being snuffed out by a disease and becoming extinct from ALL possible factors.


Those that are anti human will always be anti human but those of us that are MORE intelligent and have ARE superior to those that want to kill humanity off KNOW that they are FOOLS.

IF they win there will come a reckoning, a new population boom and a remembrance for the dead OR humanity will fail and become extinct because of these sick minded perverted freak's and there hatred of the masses.

edit on 5-4-2021 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Damn. I struck a nerve, I guess, by saying literally, that Canada "wasn't too crazy".

I'm not anti-human (usually), which is why I said, "I don't agree with any methods 9f how we'd ever achieve that."

So, I guess your superior intelligence doesn't include not jumping to conclusions, or reading comprehension. CAPITAL LETTERS.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

I just HATE the argument which is based on a brainwashed view point pushed by an agenda which is frankly wrong that there are too many people.

It began in the 50's with scare mongering scientists and began as a form of nationalism but the same scientists never argued against the vast economic migrations into Europe and there argument was as stupid then as it is today.

Climate change and pollution are the only concern's, Climate change is a natural cycle and at worst humanity has accelerated it a bit but at best we have actually staved off the next glacial maximum so our presence may have kept the world warm when now were you live may have otherwise already have been under about 2 to 3 miles of ice and growing, the little ice age period was actually the likely start of it but we are still in the quaternary glaciation period until that is all the ice melt's except for tiny cap's and a few very high altitude glaciers, those that scare monger about global warming forget this, we are in a COLD period in the earth's history and there were times when it was far warmer and life THRIVED.

The problem with other Pollution though is heavy metal's, cosmetic's and pharmaceuticals as well as of course plastic's all of which we could fix but the same people that scare monger in order to sell carbon point's in an international money making scheme and whom work closely with the same corporations that are responsible for the problem would rather find patsy's to blame it on than face the truth, corporate greed is the problem, we should go back to glass bottle's, steel can's and air tight grease proof paper wrappers and ditch our over use of plastic, we should install proper water purification plants on all sewerage outlets and only release pure water that has been through filtration and condensation process to clean it of it's impurity's.

And we should then use chemical distillation to separate the sewerage into useful and toxic waste, the useful could go to make healthy non toxic fertilizers (we should no put human faeces straight onto fields because of the drug's and medicines and cosmetic's people use.

I could go on and on and on but it boil's down to one thing, GREED.


And yes Capital letters because sometimes you have to SHOUT to be heard when people love there own opinion so much that they have convinced themselves they are right when in fact sadly they are patently wrong.

And as for superior I was being sarcastic, turning the tables if you like as that is the argument of the eugenics' believers, believers in a discredited pseudo science that has singularly been responsible for so many millions of death's.

It is a sick and twisted ideology that dates back to well before the name was coined by Francis Galton in Victorian England.

It used to be known as keeping the blood line pure and the royal and noble family's did it for century's with the ultimate outcome that they ended up being a bunch if inbred and often imbecility moron's.

en.wikipedia.org...

I mean look at the guy, let's borrow from another false science called phrenology, he has heavy eye brows, a small cranium, a weak chin the guy is obviously an inferior deviant that needed to be removed from the human gene pool.


Which is why I can not stand Idiots that cling to those false sciences that were so often used solely to justify racism and worse slavery in the past.

Yes there ARE differences in ethnic group's, take a Congolese man and put him in the arctic and he will freeze to death far faster than a norther europen (whom will not last as long as a Siberian or an Inuit), likewise put an Inuit in the Sahara desert and watch how quickly he succumbs.

Rather it is culture, education and the lies and truth's that are taught to children, the society's' they live in and the prevalent social attitudes were they live that have the greatest impact upon there psyche.

I pity a world that cling's to the lie that there are too many people.

Rather we are too crowded together, just spread people out a bit more, look at all that land in the US unused, in Siberia, in Mongolia, there is a reason city's get over crowded, people want to live with people except some like me that suffer natural dislike of crowds and densely populated places BUT I still love people and hold that we could make a better world, reducing our population is actually going to make a backward and enslaved world, less people are easier to control.

edit on 5-4-2021 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Well if that's how you feel, that's valid, but don't yell at me about it, lol.

I personally don't want to live in a world with 100 Billion people in it, not that I have to worry about it in my lifetime.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

When you get to my age you get short tempered and suffer fool's not very well, I am by dint of that an aging and grumbling man that get's annoyed and despair at what I see as idiocy very quickly, I try to get my point across but you can lead a horse to water as they say, my intentions are to help to see the light but that may not come across as I can be quite caustic at times without really meaning to, I just type as I think and then often come back to correct mistypes and remedy when I think I have said something I do not really mean or agree with.

It is a free world you are free to have your opinion and I mine, I am sad that you believe there are too many folk's in the world as for me every single life is infinitely valuable (except child abusers, rapists, murderers etc - oh and plenty of politicians and thieving legal professionals that should not be practicing law).



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Atsbhct

...as for me every single life is infinitely valuable (except child abusers, rapists, murderers etc - oh and plenty of politicians and thieving legal professionals that should not be practicing law).



I personally believe that the world would likely offer a better quality of life if there were strategically less people; but I don't agree really with any methods of how we'd ever achieve that.


I don't see what you're saying and what I'm saying as fundamentally that much different, you just put a ton of meaning in my words where it wasn't.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767


The problem with other Pollution though is heavy metal's, cosmetic's and pharmaceuticals as well as of course plastic's all of which we could fix


This, along with the squandering of resources and mass waste along every point in the supply chain are probably the biggest problems. Bigger than CO2 or any of the other garbage being pushed.

But again, that comes down to corporations being responsible for the problem, which they in fact very much are, it pushes the responsibility onto everyone and allows them to charge you for every breath you take and every moment of your existence. Every filthy human exhales dangerous CO2 with every breath right?

Some of the biggest problems don't get talked about much. Soil erosion and phosphate shortages because of unnecessary modern day industrial farming practices. It worked well for the food shortages after WW2. But should have been changed long ago after those foot shortages ended. Instead, because of greed and profit, the food supply itself has become terrible and the practices of producing it are highly destructive and wasteful.

We could look at this again with cars and fossil fuels. Back when cars were relatively new, there were electric cars, cars that ran on ethanol, you name it. There was a bunch of ways to power cars that didn't involve burning fossil fuels. But, that tech was squashed by fossil fuel lobbying and we had the last 70-80 years of mad dependence on it.

Now, finally, after those same families are divesting their oil interests and investing in 'renewables' and 'green energy', suddenly fossil fuels are bad and it's the worlds fault for being addicted to them. Again, after crushing any competing innovations for years that could have been better or more environmentally friendly, until they were ready to start making money off it. Now the world has to pay for it and clean up the mess. All while being told it's all our fault.

You can say the same thing in every industry from chemical companies, to pharmaceuticals, they are responsible for making the things that poisoned the world. Now they expect everybody else to pay for it.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

Then I apologize if I took your meaning wrong, the misunderstanding of YOUR point therefore is mine and therefore I am at fault in the nature of my reply, though I stand by my belief's.

Sorry if I took you wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2021 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: dug88

I'm glad I didn't get anything like that while doing my graduate or undergrad degrees. It was all content that was pertinent to my chosen field of study. I do believe that this has been going on for some time now, however I think the agenda may have hit a small snag with China. Unless of course there's some sort of method that will be utilized to curb growth in that area since they've repealed the 1 child policy. I could see the current climate leading to a war that would remove a good portion of the population of that part of the world, China, India, etc. however unless they have other controls in place it will rebound fairly quickly.
That or China has been “Chosen” to lead the next century. China itself already has a depopulation apparatus installed, learned from their very own people and real world active in real time Uighur camps in China.
If this thread is anything I’ve been gathering, seems the current world epochs are subject to change and a handing of roles may be the net in all this collaboration of global interest.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join