FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

David Mayer de Rothschild on Alex Jones 7-5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
elohim
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Ipswich

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to add the following:

For years we have had dozens upon dozens of reports from sponsored "think tanks" on how we need a reduction in birth rates & world poulation.

Just as PNAC miracaliously got their new "Pearl Harbour" after pleading for it, the elite have gotten their wish for a reduction in birth rates, sperm counts & fertility.

Here's the important question:

How have they done this?

Sure a small part of the decline in birth rates could be given to better reproductive health services, but what about the rest?

How, exactly do you miracaliously get the male sperm count to drop, male fertility to spiral downward and female fertility to drop?

Food, diet, vacines, crop spraying, chemicals.....take your pick.

Eugenics is alive and well...sigh

EL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
festival of snickers
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

some countries they pay people to have babies i think
_________________
Puzzling Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinF8BiDNaU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
elohim
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Ipswich

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
some countries they pay people to have babies i think


So does the UK........it's called the benefit system.

Every teenager, lay around slob, work shy scrubber & immigrant can reproduce in the comforting knowledge that they will be provided with, money & a house.....

Of course this is tounge in cheek, I believe that the state should provide a fall back to those who cannot genuinely work.

Further we have to consider that these types are people are only the results of a sick corrupt culture spread & promoted by you know who...

EL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

elohim wrote:
Quote:
i don't know about a one child poilcy but i think there needs to be a restriction on the amount of children each couple has.


Why do you think that this is so?

Quote:
people are living longer these days and the birth rate is much higher than the death rate


This is bogus. The birth rates have fallen over the last 100 years, this is in terms of both male fertility rates (which has dramitcally fallen) Mysteriously (COUGH COUGH) and total fertility rates (the number of children a woman can theoretically have in her liftime)

Instead, the rates of growth of the world population result primarily from declining mortality levels, particularly among infants and children, most especially among developing countries.

Generally the brith & death rates are measured by the differance between the 2, so if birth rates & death rates are the same you would have zero popualtion growth.

Quote:
i dont support it but out of the options and knowing/thinking population reduction is whats driving them to do what they are doing i'd rather it be a one child policy than anything else untill the population was reduced.


Oh so it's love of their fellow man which is driving them to reduce the population for the benefit of everyone, let me bow down & kiss the ring of everyone of these freaks....

Population control (eugenics or mass murder) has been the long term aim of the pyscopaths. Employing the likes of Russell, Huxley & other scientific think tanks they have been pushing the idea to reduce the population long before there was a supposed problem.

During the last century they even managed to get a number of states in the US to pass laws forcibly sterilise certain unwanted groups of people.

We should not forget or be naive enough to think that Hitler came up with the ideas of eugenics or mass murder, his ideas did not entirley spring from his own warped mind, but rather, came directly from these "think tanks" in the United States, with IBM even helping with the equipment.

I was reading some documents from one of these elite funded think tanks a while back and their solution for poverty was NOT to play fair and tackle the causes of poverty, but to simply get rid of the poor people.

Quote:
so don't think im saying i agree with it, im just saying we may not have a choice and out of the options they could use i'd rather them use this method.


You be sure to pass that on to them, that you don't mind living in a police state world, as long as they are not too evil & physcopathic.

This is not a edition of the quiz the eggheads or a multi choice school exam, no options acceptable if you value your freedom.

Their population control program is a multi faceted attack, under the guise of womens rights, reproduction health services. That's not to mention vacinations & other chemicals being pumped into our body.

Dont think it's all so subtle though will you, the Ministry of defence recently published a forward looking report into the next 10 - 20 years.

One paragraph really sticks out, it reads:

"Neutron weapons WILL be used for extreme ethnic cleansing, for the purposes of POPULATION CONTROL"

Think carefully who would (already does) have such a weapon.

It's NOT the working class or middle class people & it certainly wont be a tin pot country like Iran or North Korea, assuming the havent been assimulated by the Central Banks by then.

No it's the elite driven & run countries, come on just die nicely....

EL


hmmm some one says one child policy is sick, which it is. but i was pointing out if population reduction is what drives them and there is no choice one way or the other then that option is better than the murdering people option which is what most currently think is going to happen.

most of your post took what i was saying out of context and added things i was not saying or implying i was justifying it even though i had said i do not.

the fact is regardless of if you like it or not or i like it or not, the most humane way to reduce a population is by one child policy. how is that saying i support them killing people Confused, the reason i think its the best way is because it would'nt be killing people so i don't get some of what you said.

you car'nt kill something that has not been created.

i disagree with all methods but which would you rather if there was no way out of it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

also population has been increasing dramtically, for what ever reason and is predicted to continue to rise. this is what is bothering those in power from what i can tell by looking at the whole picture. what do you think will happen in the future if the population continues to rise at a rapid rate with our way of life as it is?

global warming, the war on terror and what ever else are just parts of the leading up to population reduction and having reasons to do it regardless of if we agree with it or not. for example how many have died so far through the war on terror at the hands of both sides of the conflict? see its a reason/excuse(not mine either).

so when i say in my opinon we need restrctions on how many children each couple has, it is simply because at the present rate and the way we live there is a good chance there will be a disaster in the future, more people = more food/trees needed etc, nature only replenishes things at a certain rate, if we exceed that rate we run out. they know this more than likely and are trying to solve the problem without telling us.

and other than just power being the issue, enslaving us and controlling our birth rate would solve the problem forever as far as they are concerned. especially while ever people ignore the problem or are oblivious to it.

so people living freely but all under the same circumstances(one/two children per couple) to have a stable population and avoid disaster from over population.

or be enslaved and a large portion of us killed to have a stable population to avoid disaster forever whilst gaining total power.(their method).

or population contines to spiral eventually leading to disaster.

i don't want any in an ideal world but i know which i'd rather.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the only other way would be to live with nature and go back to basics, but i cannot see those in power wanting this or much of the populations who like conveniance, and regardless most land is now owned by someone who can turff you off when ever they pleased.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scientists Debate How Much Population the World Can Sustain. In the days of sailing ships, sailors used to leave goats on islands to ensure fresh meat on return trips. But the animals bred faster than the sailors could eat them, and goats ate all the vegetation and began to starve. They also screwed up the environment so that native species couldn't survive, either. Biologists say this lesson applies to humans and point out how our "island" has suffered. There is air and water pollution, falling water tables, climate change and rampant extinction of wild plants and animals. Humans are respomsible for increased temperatures, melting glaciers and rising seas, Too many people are burning too many fossil fuels. We've created this problem because we've had virtually free energy in the form of fossil fuels. Every year, at least 91 million humans are added to the world population. The Earth's carrying capacity is somewhere in the range of 4 billion to 5 billion people but there are 6.5 billion of us. Half of the world's population has little access to medicine, electricity, safe water and reliable food supplies. You might have 50 billion, but the quality of life might not be pleasing. If the 1.3 million residents of Franklin County had to live on the resources the county could provide, Waite figures, only about 100,000 would live here. We import the vast majority of our needs. The US has the resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million. Americans, who make up 5% of the world's population, use 25% of its resources. The average American's footprint is about 22 acres. The average citizen of India has a footprint one-sixteenth that size. If all 6 billion people were to share the world's resources equally, Americans would have to reduce consumption by 80% for each of us to have a footprint of about 4.4 acres. Carrying capacity and footprint are tied to the global economy, which has quadrupled since the world's population doubled. That leads to a fear that slowing population growth might not curb greenhouse gas production if more people achieve Western lifestyles. India and China are developing rapidly and have affected climate change. China is opening one coal-fired power plant a week to meet electricity demand. Everyone in China wants their own apartment and car, which is going to have a massive effect on the planet. How many people can the Earth can sustain? That it depends on whether you want to live like an Indian or an American. Each American consumes 1,760 pounds annually, mainly because of the grains used to feed farm animals. If everyone on the planet consumed that much grain, Earth would support only about 2.5 billion people. But in India, people consume about 440 pounds each. If everyone else in the world did likewise, the world's grain would support about 10 billion people. Growing 1 ton of grain requires 1,000 tons of water. There are water shortages in Africa, Asia and the Middle East and as water is diverted from agriculture to support growing urban populations, more grain must be imported. Soybeans are in demand for biodiesel and ethanol production vies with food for corn. By 2008, half of the U.S. corn crop will go to ethanol. Seventy percent of all corn imports in the world come from the U.S. and competition for energy and food will change the landscape. We don't have enough land worldwide to meet those demands. Demand for food, fuel and materials already consumes more trees and crops than are being grown worldwide.

http://www.overpopulation.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent posts Elohim.

Psycopathic elites always seem to have some justification for reducing the population. I think it was 'historical necessity' in Russia, getting rid of degenerates with Hitler, appeasing whatever god it was with the Aztecs and many other philosophies and docterines throughout history which legitimise genocide, in the mind of the public, to some extent.

This is what the current Co2/Overpopulation programme would appear to be. But you don't need to speculate when you read some of the stuff put out by the Club of Rome et al some decades ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

elites or not over population is or will be a problem at some point in the future, one child policy is NOT genocide.

but it is something people have to think about or discuss if people want to avoid disaster.

looking at the whole picture those in power have took upon themselves to solve the problem, which i disagree with. it should be mentioned to the people and debated for the best solution and ways we can all work together to avoid the problem.

instead we are being bombarded with other problems so when anything happens that results in mass loss of life it can be blamed on the problems they have given us. weather its peak oil,global warming, the war on terror, stock markets crashing etc etc etc. the under lining motivation to create these problems is population reduction.

one child policy would be more humane than creating false proplems to kill us all off.

but whatever happens over population is a problem for mankind, it dos'nt go away by ignoring it or putting it down to psycopathic elites making it up. ive hardly heard over population mentioned and it certainly has not been promoted by the mainstream however all their other problems to excuse depopulating the world have. that would suggest to me over population is a real problem with false problems to solve it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To listen to the clip again see here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/090707closertosun.htm

I'm not sure what has happened to this thread but to return to the interview......... the thing that struck me was the almost unbelievable sneering giggling arrogance of this young Rothschild.

Very public school indeed.

There is no way this pri*k thinks Saturn, Jupiter and Mars are closer to the sun than earth. This was a display of contempt, as was clear from his little giggle after saying it....people like this have no interest in the actual arguments and can afford to look down at and laugh at the likes of Jones (and the rest of us), safe in the belief that their money power will win the public argument regardless of its truth or fallacy.

Listen again. Here is the enemy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marky 54:

No, one child policy isn't genocide but genocide is what Elites get up to as soon as they have a population who will allow it. I don't think it will be long before the kids graduating from the indoctrination centres will be quite happy with the idea of culling masses of people in order to save the earth.

These are the establishments where individuals line Eric Pinanka get standing ovations for stating that we need to eliminate 95% of the population and he's a conservative eco-nazi.

I can't think of any evidence, that we are overpopulated or facing an imminent population crisis, that hasn't come out of some organ of the NWO. But am open to persuasion. Most recently I heard Weekend Womans Hour laying the groundwork for the comming child tax by busting the 'last taboo' of 'is it our right to decide how many children we have?'.

It appears that most of the population reduction arguments go back Co2 but I would like to know if there are any that are scientific.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uselesseater wrote:
Marky 54:

No, one child policy isn't genocide but genocide is what Elites get up to as soon as they have a population who will allow it. I don't think it will be long before the kids graduating from the indoctrination centres will be quite happy with the idea of culling masses of people in order to save the earth.

These are the establishments where individuals line Eric Pinanka get standing ovations for stating that we need to eliminate 95% of the population and he's a conservative eco-nazi.

I can't think of any evidence, that we are overpopulated or facing an imminent population crisis, that hasn't come out of some organ of the NWO. But am open to persuasion. Most recently I heard Weekend Womans Hour laying the groundwork for the comming child tax by busting the 'last taboo' of 'is it our right to decide how many children we have?'.

It appears that most of the population reduction arguments go back Co2 but I would like to know if there are any that are scientific.


i don't understand why you think one child policy = the population justifying or accepting or allowing genocide?

over population is a problem for the future not right this minute, it is my opinon that those in power know of the problem that can arise from over population and are trying to do something about it without telling us the real reasons for everything that is happening and their motives.

why you need evidence to see over population can cause problems is puzzling, just thinking about all the extra resources needed to support a bigger population and the impact of that on the earth should surely point out the potential problem.

to start more food would be needed =more farmland needed= destroying more natural woodland etc that are homes to certain types of species= more species going extinct. and what happens when theres no land left to farm? even more people will die of starvation, now we could call that a natural death if you like but i don't see how its any differant to genocide when its all coursed because no human thought about the actions of having 5 or more kids every generation.

more people will mean more demand for wood, more demand for wood = more trees chopped down= more species lose their natural enviorment= more species extinct.

more fish needed= more fishing = fish stocks don't have time to replenish = sea life going extinct.

more litter produced, more manufactoring needed , more slaves needed from third world countrys to meet the demands of manufactoring.

more houses needed = more destruction of natural enviorments.

the list goes on and on.

the only way we can sustain a very large population would be if we lived like we did in the early civilizations, where they only took what was needed to survive from the enviorment and grow back what they used and tended to nature and respected it, instead of the mass destruction to meet demand like we have today.

eventually with the way we live today if the population continues to rise at the rate it is sometime in the future echo systems will collapse.
the only way to give nature a chance is to have less children so there is less demand on the earths resources, and give nature a chance to grow back or replenish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here are some figures past and present and also predicted.

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.h tm

its all going to mean more resources will be needed more people will be sold into slave labour more people will be very very poor or strave etc etc.

have you ever wondered why nearly every topic on this forum is about events that we are either lied to about or kept secret from us that all imply or suggest people will die as a result or did die as a result? why do you think that is? i think its because they are trying to solve the problem whilst making profit and gaining power.

hence one child policy would be more humane.

and even if all the problems of today was not here or exsisted that do today, overpopulation would not go away, if people want a world of peace and without wars then they have to be willing or think about having less children than usual because no wars means less deaths.

in the past war is what slowed the problem even if that was'nt the intention of the war.

we simply cannot live how we are expect peace and have no care about how many children we have all at the same time.

we either need to live with nature and go back to basics(so we are taking ONLY what is needed to survive), have wars or have less children.

the other option is what those in power seem to be doing but blaming on other things to make it all seem innocent, i hope im wrong. and i know none of us agree with that method.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Over population is a consequence of poverty. When people have enough, such as in western countries, the birth rate falls to a level where the population starts to decline. It is only maintained by immigration from poorer countries. Having a large family is seen as a good way to provide for the future in less advanced societies, as it was in the UK until the middle of the 20th century where families of 10 or more were commonplace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blackcat wrote:
Over population is a consequence of poverty. When people have enough, such as in western countries, the birth rate falls to a level where the population starts to decline. It is only maintained by immigration from poorer countries. Having a large family is seen as a good way to provide for the future in less advanced societies, as it was in the UK until the middle of the 20th century where families of 10 or more were commonplace.


the world population is predicted to rise, the more people there are the less people will have enough. and the more people that will be poor, so it all adds and will make the problem worse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i just want to make it clear before im accused of excusing genocide again.

i am not saying the solution is to kill people, im saying the only humane solution is one child policy or something like that, which means less people being born, NOT more people being killed or any for that matter.

im pointing out a problem for the future and something people need to think about, as all the current agenda's that people claim on this site ALL point to population reduction. and if they are all true or some are true, then my opinon is they are all invented or coursed on purpose to solve over population, enslave us and control us to ensure overpopulation will never be a problem ever again in order to protect their own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. But doesn't the UN say the population can reach 10bn before it begins to contract due to lack of resources?

And the elite state over and over how they want to irradicate 80-95% of us. Do you think they are doing this cause they care about the earth?

Yes I agree Balckcat. If developing countries develope their birthrate will begin to come down but we know they won't be allowed to develope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uselesseater wrote:
Yes. But doesn't the UN say the population can reach 10bn before it begins to contract due to lack of resources?

And the elite state over and over how they want to irradicate 80-95% of us. Do you think they are doing this cause they care about the earth?

Yes I agree Balckcat. If developing countries develope their birthrate will begin to come down but we know they won't be allowed to develope.


we reach 9.2 billion in 2050.

if 10 billion means running out of resources then my guess is they are doing to save there own and the planet, because they carn't live here without a liveable planet can they?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don't worry peeps stuff like bird flu on the AIDS ridden population of the world will thin out the numbers a bit, especially if it keeps it's current death rate and spreads like spanish flu which it should do because of increased urbanization.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lockerbie wrote:
don't worry peeps stuff like bird flu on the AIDS ridden population of the world will thin out the numbers a bit, especially if it keeps it's current death rate and spreads like spanish flu which it should do because of increased urbanization.


thats exactly the method i think sucks, which is why i was trying to say in the first post i made on this thread one child policy is a more humane way to solve the problem if over population is a problem, upon looking at it over population will be a problem in the future, which is why people are being killed of with HIV, BIRD FLU etc, and what ever other methods they have planned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it sucks but it is inevitable. it's not a question of whether or not it is humane, it will happen anyway and there's very little we can do about it. mother nature's always done that, we start building our population up and she comes along and gives us a quick kick in the nuts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alex does such a job of engaging people. Rolling Eyes

A classic example of how to alienate people so they think all conspiracy researchers are lunatics.

Take a beta-blocker or 3 Alex.

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lockerbie wrote:
it sucks but it is inevitable. it's not a question of whether or not it is humane, it will happen anyway and there's very little we can do about it. mother nature's always done that, we start building our population up and she comes along and gives us a quick kick in the nuts.


ah i see you don't think man made diseases exsist. well i hope your right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
uselesseater wrote:
Yes. But doesn't the UN say the population can reach 10bn before it begins to contract due to lack of resources?

And the elite state over and over how they want to irradicate 80-95% of us. Do you think they are doing this cause they care about the earth?

Yes I agree Balckcat. If developing countries develope their birthrate will begin to come down but we know they won't be allowed to develope.


we reach 9.2 billion in 2050.

if 10 billion means running out of resources then my guess is they are doing to save there own and the planet, because they carn't live here without a liveable planet can they?


Do you agree with the 'analysis' of people like Eric Pianka who advocate %95 population reduction?

and

Do you not think the current ruling class might have a double or tripple motive for pushing this agenda?

Elites always have some pretext for getting rid of millions...

Do you think Pol Pot or Stalin were doing it for the good of the earth? Or do you think it is coincidental that when a dictatorial form of government arises with a powerful enough ideology that most of the people buy into, they begin routinely disposing of people?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uselesseater wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
uselesseater wrote:
Yes. But doesn't the UN say the population can reach 10bn before it begins to contract due to lack of resources?

And the elite state over and over how they want to irradicate 80-95% of us. Do you think they are doing this cause they care about the earth?

Yes I agree Balckcat. If developing countries develope their birthrate will begin to come down but we know they won't be allowed to develope.


we reach 9.2 billion in 2050.

if 10 billion means running out of resources then my guess is they are doing to save there own and the planet, because they carn't live here without a liveable planet can they?


Do you agree with the 'analysis' of people like Eric Pianka who advocate %95 population reduction?

and

Do you not think the current ruling class might have a double or tripple motive for pushing this agenda?

Elites always have some pretext for getting rid of millions...

Do you think Pol Pot or Stalin were doing it for the good of the earth? Or do you think it is coincidental that when a dictatorial form of government arises with a powerful enough ideology that most of the people buy into, they begin routinely disposing of people?


i don't mean this in a nasty way but this is like banging your head against a brick wall.

i have said on more than one occasion i do not support "getting rid" of people to solve the problem. so no i dont agree with getting rid of 95% of the population!

that dos'nt mean though that over population will not be or is not a problem. hence everyone needs to think about having less children in the future to avoid overpopulation which will result in destroting the world which we live in.

less births = less people, what is hard to understand? unless you think killing people is the best option? i don't.

i believe overpopulation is what the real issue is and one of the reasons the elite are doing what they are other than just power and profit.

but its important to understand that even if there was no elite overpopulation would still be a problem, if the elite did'nt exsist the problem would not just go away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you just disagree with their methods? ok

Firstly I agree that there are limits to the ammount of people the planet can sustain.

But

I think they are basicly brainwashing kids with a phoney environmental agenda wich only focuses on Co2 and overpopulation whilst ignoring other grave environmental concerns like freakish cross species chimera and GM food which they love cause it will feed the world or some such garbage. In addition to the hardcore toxification of our enviromnent with pedrochemicals, heavy metals, millions of gallons of nerve gas dumped etc... ad nauseum.

I can clearly see future generations having no problem with the elimination of people in order to save the planet. Conservatively speaking, our kids will probaly have us euthonised.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uselesseater wrote:
So you just disagree with their methods? ok

Firstly I agree that there are limits to the ammount of people the planet can sustain.

But

I think they are basicly brainwashing kids with a phoney environmental agenda wich only focuses on Co2 and overpopulation whilst ignoring other grave environmental concerns like freakish cross species chimera and GM food which they love cause it will feed the world or some such garbage. In addition to the hardcore toxification of our enviromnent with pedrochemicals, heavy metals, millions of gallons of nerve gas dumped etc... ad nauseum.

I can clearly see future generations having no problem with the elimination of people in order to save the planet. Conservatively speaking, our kids will probaly have us euthonised.


again i disagree with those methods.

but don't it ever cross your mind the reason they are doing all that is because it is just small parts of solving the overpopulation problem to them? and if they can get the next generations to accept killing then all the better as far as they are concerned, it will make it much easier.

can you at least see why im saying something like a one child policy is the best more humane solution if it is overpopulation that is the real issue? and out of all the methods of population reduction it is the best one?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

urgh, Alex Jones. Guy is a total shill who turns everything into a conspiracy in order to turn a profit on the people gullible enough to swallow everything he says while at the same time espousing a fascistic 'morality'. He is one big walking irony.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TmcMistress wrote:
....urgh, Alex Jones. Guy is a total shill


Who is he 'shilling' for?

Please elaborate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Definition of shill from dictionary.com:

shill
–noun
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
–verb (used without object)
3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
–verb (used with object)
4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.


He shills his own product, and is busy making money on people who have stepped so far into the shadows that they see them EVERYWHERE. He takes advantage of people who are too lazy or foolish to do their own research and are far too quick to see a conspiracy in everything and everyone. He plays off of fear, gullibility, and personality types who like to cast themselves as the hero / heroine preparing to do battle against the overarching evil, and makes a quick buck doing it.

Not to mention he's also a homophobic gun nut.

_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group