Kudos to you!!!! Exactly right you are! Only problem, too many are sheeple and for about six decades the students have been being dumbed down so they do not know how to think for themselves and in a full circle of life and what life brings, means and how to do the best for your nation and for yourself. Would you believe, a school in Wyoming states, "we support the TSA," Homeland is an illegal agency and therefore unConstitutional or that we have to obey the unConstitutional laws that are being laid upon our shoulders..this is called authoritism (spelling is probably wrong), and that is the next thing to Marxism is it not? WE NEED RON PAUL! Ron is the only one willing to get us out of the UN which would get us out of the UNsAgenda 21 plan to do away with most of us as well as bringing hardships upon all of living mortals...it is the undoing of America people..he also would rescind the Patriot Act and that we need also..we do not have American terrorists here...well, yes we do...it is our Regime in DC and the imagination of Big Sis...Janet...
Agenda is depopulation ?
- Thread starter light200763
- Start date
You might check this out...there is quite an argument going on amongst many..here is the statement:
The U.S. Constitution forthe United States of America and The U.S. Constitution ofthe United States...Lincoln was our last president of the Republic...while Martial Law was in force, the Constitution was changed...one little word brought on a whole new world of definition for that made America, the USA, a corporation and if that is so, then we are nothing but assets to be pawned and done with at the beck and call of the government..I have read and read and then I get confused so I put the two up again and try to work through what I have read...I am sure there are those smarter than I...
The U.S. Constitution forthe United States of America and The U.S. Constitution ofthe United States...Lincoln was our last president of the Republic...while Martial Law was in force, the Constitution was changed...one little word brought on a whole new world of definition for that made America, the USA, a corporation and if that is so, then we are nothing but assets to be pawned and done with at the beck and call of the government..I have read and read and then I get confused so I put the two up again and try to work through what I have read...I am sure there are those smarter than I...
Unfortunately, MLK and Ron Paul are surely right! How about the sterilization in NC? They have sterilized over 30,000 women in Africa and these women, I wonder if they know what our government is doing to them? The Gates, like all Bilderberg associates are wicked in every way. It has been proved that 50,000 soldiers died in one of the WW and it was from vaccines where some were tainted and some were not....if Ron does not get in and Mitt does, we are doomed..he is another Obama. Mitt is associated with the CFR organization..please read for yourself; he is not at all what he professes to be..he is big, big government, big spending, pro abortion and you name it, if it is negative, he is for it!
sustainability is a liberal collectivist environmentalist Marxist scam. isn't it?
Well, according to the plagues that precede all of those rash generalizations it really isn't. I wont belittle anyone by elucidating the theory Malthusian events, depopulation is nature's agenda and there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. We have not helped our case with massive overuse of antibiotics or genetically modifying plants to yield more at the expense of natural resistance while at the same time we, unintentionally perhaps, breed super-pests with "pesticides". The population of rats in cities is exploding... being out of the cities won't really help you if a plague strikes and the same might be said of a famine... and I don't think it will be very long... not very long at all 
... my precious.
For an example check out The Great Mortality by John Kelly.
... my precious. For an example check out The Great Mortality by John Kelly.
Well, according to the plagues that precede all of those rash generalizations it really isn't. I wont belittle anyone by elucidating the theory Malthusian events, depopulation is nature's agenda and there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. We have not helped our case with massive overuse of antibiotics or genetically modifying plants to yield more at the expense of natural resistance while at the same time we, unintentionally perhaps, breed super-pests with "pesticides". The population of rats in cities is exploding... being out of the cities won't really help you if a plague strikes and the same might be said of a famine... and I don't think it will be very long... not very long at all
For an example check out The Great Mortality by John Kelly.
wrong, there IS something we can do about it, its easy and always works, it's called PRAYER. Repent to God your sins, admit you are wrong, and ask God to deliver you from the rat infested hell called Earth, so you can be free again. Millions of souls have been saved, it's not too late. For those who don't believe in God, roll back your government, history has proven that less government ALWAYS means higher quality of life and lower rate or mortality , sustainablity is never an issue when there's no government to interfere with people who know how to solve problems.
texansaa21
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 13
Sustainability sounds like such a nice word. Too bad they don't tell you what isn't sustainable! Like the way of life of us Americans. No, can't have that. Need to bring us down a notch, to a level on par with the rest of the developing world.
I found this nice write up on Agenda 21 and it is very much related:
And here is the RNC denouncing Agenda 21:
http://www.republicanassemblies.org/rnc-adopts-resolution-exposing-agenda-21/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286843-Agenda-21-In-One-Easy-Lesson-United-Nations-quot-Sustainable-Development-quot-Agenda
And here is the RNC denouncing Agenda 21:
http://www.republicanassemblies.org/rnc-adopts-resolution-exposing-agenda-21/
It is a United Nations liberal collectivist environmentalist Marxist scam. I'm pissed about it because I have to study this crap in school for a Geography degree. They literally teach Agenda 21 and Marxism and called it Geography.
sustainability is not a scam, really it is an integral part of free market function. If sustainability were not an issue than resources would not be scarce. As a race, people have really set themselves up... I think everyone understands blow back when it comes to Foreign Policy, well there is blow back as regards treating nature like a toy too.
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world."
~Henry Kissinger
texansaa21
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 13
Ouch! I suppose they are presenting it as if it were a good thing?
Could you unpack that for me, I don't know if your agreeing or disagreeing lol. I like being dense.
Yes, along with material from the Tides Foundation. That was last semester, this semester my textbook says that free markets caused the great depression and Keynesian economics are responsible for modern technology while the teacher asks if FDR was the best president ever or the second best after TR. Check out this diagram from the text:
Urbanization: An Introduction to Urban Geography, Paul L. Knox; Linda McCarthy
Urbanization: An Introduction to Urban Geography, Paul L. Knox; Linda McCarthy
I don't see alot of sense in that diagram. Good luck dude, get the grade not the doctrine. Im in the same grinder, except I am an English Major... Ill post some texts from my class. Jefferson Davis is pushed as an evil slave holding elitist. The only they print in the book is an essay he wrote about eugenics.
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
I do not listen to Alex Jones. The few bits I have heard were out there, making them problematic because of a lack of conclusive evidence and thereby making his stories easy fodder for those who like yelling "conspiracy nut!"
The question is problematic in terms of proof. It is less so when one casts a broad net and pays attention to the various bits and pieces of information that leak out in media which, when put together suggest the likelihood that the answer is affirmative. U.N. position papers and programs offer tidbits as do all manner of other small pieces that, taken alone, seem innocuous enough. There appears to be a significant contingent whose feelings on the question of population are unequivocal: that the human population is either already beyond the "sustainable" level or is rapidly approaching that point. Add to that all the hand wringing emanating from various sources regarding other issues of "sustainability" such as food production, energy and water resources, just to name three.
What is not much discussed, to my knowledge anyhow, are issues such as what an ideal population level might be, how that level has been determined and how "they" know it is right, the time frame in which "we" should achieve that population, how it will be achieved, and by what means will the level be enforced. There are a numerous other questions that relate to these, but lets leave those out of the discussion.
One may, however, draw several inferences from the great fog of information that is available, even though specifics (numbers and so forth) may be lacking. For example, if we assume that the world will be at a tipping point by, say, 2030 (some say we're already past it) and that the ideal population is 6 billion, how do "they" propose to reduce the so-called surplus? Does one not see a problem with regarding any population as "surplus"? The connotations are a bit chilling and raise some interesting questions such as, who exactly is this surplus popuation? What are their names and how is it that they were so categorized? Who rates them and how, pray tell, are they to be escorted from their lives?
I am not quite up on global death rates, but if the worldwide birth rate went to ZERO tomorrow, I am in some doubt that the natural decay rate of the population would find us down by a full billion by 2030. Also, one must consider the age gap that an 18 year cessation in birth would have on the population. I cannot say what it would be, but I have little trouble in accepting that it would be profound. Then consider the question if restarting human reproductive activity. Simply uncorking the dam and letting the water flow stands to result in nothing better than a return to the initial condition that necessitated the stoppage. Complicated as this all seems, consider how much more so it would become when one withdraws the completely delusional assumption that efforts in controlling the global reproduction rate would be even marginally successful. Consider the abject failure of China's policy of one child only - resulting in much infanticide and a world of other problems.
Given all this, it seems just this side of implausible that anyone would be able to properly specify, administer, and execute such a program fraught in its very fabric with so many problems, not the least of which would be strong resistance from a vast subset of the world's populace. If such an idea is indeed implausible, which is to say that it is virtually impossible to realize, yet the "authorities" in question remain convinced of the absolute and irrefutable necessity for such reductions, we are left with an uncomfortably narrow avenue of alternatives - namely one, which would be to cull the population. This, of course, requires murder on a scale that would have given Mao an erection to make the manufacturers of Viagra weep in bitter envy. There is no other way I can readily imagine, save shipping bodies off world to the Moon or Mars - not out of the question, but getting a billion to go seems just this side of impossible from several standpoints.
Therefore, if we assume "they" are serious about achieving so-called sustainable population levels and accept the near-impossibility of controlling birth rates per the previous discussion, and agree that sending live bodies off-world is not feasible, we are left with active culling as the only remaining means of achieving the goal that seems even remotely viable in purely operational terms.
The assumptions seem large and are, of course, very serious. Yet if one peruses much of the literature (Agenda 21 for example) and the seemingly casual and offhand comments of scores of globalist personalities, e.g. Soros, Clinton, and so forth, one is hard pressed to see how the goals will be achieved even within the coming 50 years without application of very serious force. Shorter time frames appear to necessitate mass murder as the means.
Take from this what you will.
EDIT:
I just did some cursory research on the overall global death rate. http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Global-Death-Rate states it at about 1.78 deaths per second, world-wide. If we accept this as reasonably accurate, then a zero birth rate would bring us right in at 1.01 billion deaths by 2030. This does not, however, address the question of how to get people to stop having children for 18 years not to mention that the potential for "success" predicates on the 6 billion figure as the maximum sustainable population level. If we cut that to even 5.5 billion, we remain in some trouble. Granted, at that point it could be argued that the rate of "loss" is lowered and we could them take perhaps another ten years to ramp down that additional half billion souls. That, however, leaves us with a 28 year population gap - an entire generation missing. I would submit that this might pose a very serious threat to the very survival of the human species in any manner we might view as meaningful.
As the theorized maximum sustainable population figure diminishes, the problems of "rapid" achievement grow at a rate that to my intuition appears to far outstrip recession, seemingly following a curve of precipitously diminishing returns. Even without the benefit of any precise and credible calculations, it seems that what "they" have in mind is in no way readily doable such that the population devolves without resorting to murder on an almost unimaginably grand scale.
If perchance the figure of 500 millions cited on the Georgia Guide Stones is the true goal, then even with a zero birth rate there would be a reduction of only 2.8 billions by 2062. That leaves two full generations missing in the chain of life, so to speak, making a reduction to even 4 billions a very iffy proposition at best, over the coming century.
Once again, I refer you to the great verbal hand-wringing that so many of the purported "experts" broadcast to the world including large environmental groups, the UN, almost innumerable political personalities as well as "celebrities" such as actors and so forth. They are all sounding the clarion's call to action in the face of imminent disaster, the threat posing the justification for the various population control schemes that appear to be brewing in the wings. What these rocket surgeons appear to have failed at is having engaged their intellects, such as they may be, in conducting a reasonable analytical determination of the realities of implementation. Had they done so and assuming these are honest and ethical people (a great stretch I admit), then why do they not also raise the specter of mass murder as the only means by which their apparent addictions to instant gratification may be satisfied in this matter? Why, indeed.
What I see are a great raft of cowards who fear this expanding mass of humanity (possibly with good cause, I might add), but who are in no way content to take their chances equally with their fellows to see how it all shakes out. THAT is where the cowardice lies. In addition, it seems implicit that such people believe that one subset is worthy of survival while another is not. This cannot be escaped by any trick of logic one might care to conjure. We have NAZI Germany all over again, only on a global scale with vast swaths of humanity deemed expendable by the rest and all for the heart rendering and altruistic purposes of saving the planet and, seemingly secondarily, humanity. Once again we see the "greater good" being determined by an elite minority, the unwashed and scrubby masses paying the price in this case for the utter temerity of having been born and for wanting to live just as do the elites themselves. The nerve!
The question then is this: do these people not see the troubles that are so blatantly inherent to the notions they propose? So blatant that my paltry analysis reveals them in gigantic, glaring neon terms that even a three-days rotting corpse would recognize? Or do they see it well enough and secretly believe that the proverbial greater good demands those more fit to survive sacrifice the lives of those less so?
The truly worrisome aspect of this is that the means now exists to achieve this feat. Genetic engineering is opening vistas for the weaponization of biological instrumentality that could possibly achieve the job in a matter of weeks. I suspect the lack of specificity in targeting is what could possibly be stalling action. After all, the worthy certainly do not want to fall victim to the devices intended to rid the world of regrettably inferior stock. That just would not be right.
Last edited:
Similar threads
