On May 5th, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a number of other "super wealthy" Americans gathered for a secret meeting in Manhattan. Reportedly the goal of the meeting was to consider how their combined wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population.There was a COMPLETE blackout by the American news media of this clandestine gathering. They reportedly met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and the president of Rockefeller University. The secret meeting was supposed to be so discreet that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told they were at "security briefings".
However, some details about this secret meeting have emerged.
According to one major U.K. newspaper, one person who attended the meeting said that "a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat."
The same news article includes some incredibly disturbing quotes about the meeting from that same anonymous source.....
"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers."
"They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming."
In other words, these rich elitists are the ones who will provide the "big-brain" answers that the rest of us morons are not capable of coming up with.
The truth is that this secret meeting is just the latest example of the obsession that the global elite has with population control.
It seems that now there is almost a non-stop propaganda campaign in the western world to promote abortion, sterilization, family size limits, lower birth rates and other even more draconian population control measures.
One of the most recent shocking comments on population control came from the U.K. government's "green guru".
The chair of the U.K. government's Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, said that parents who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an "unbearable" burden on the environment.
Porritt also says that curbing population growth through abortion and contraception are absolutely necessary in order to fight global warming.
When government officials begin talking of limits on family sizes it is time for alarm bells to start going off.
The truth is that the freedom to marry and reproduce and to raise a family is one of the most cherished and most basic of all human freedoms.
But the global elite have become absolutely obsessed with population control, and their sick obsession is starting to reveal itself in society in a thousand different ways.
For most of human history, the thought of the government or anyone else restricting how many children one could have was absolutely unthinkable.
However, today there are many, particularly in the Western world, who are been convinced by government propaganda to willingly restrict their own reproductive capabilities.
One 27 year old woman named Toni Vernelli told the Daily Mail why she decided to get permanently sterilized: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
Some activists have even gone to the absolute extreme by forming "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" which seeks to reduce the presence of humanity on earth as much as possible.
Their motto is: “May we live long and die out”.
Doesn't that sound lovely?
So is the ballooning population of planet earth a huge threat to the environment?
Do we need to implement strict population controls for the good of mankind?
The reality is that the world has more people than it ever has had in all of recorded history. Some countries have implemented population laws that are quite strict (such as China's one child policy), while other nations do not have any mandatory population regulations yet. Lately, however, we have started to see some population control measures begin to pop up in the Western world.....
*Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers will be sentenced to take contraception for a period of two years, according to a new bill before the Dutch parliament.
*In the U.K., one influential think tank says that it is an "eco-crime" to have too many children and that we really need to examine the impact our large population is having on the earth.
*In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax dollars to do this.
Did you know that was what your tax dollars were doing?
The truth is that the desire by the global elite to limit the population of the earth has been around for a long, long time. Between 1798-1826, English economist Thomas Malthus published six editions of his work entitled "Essay on the Principle of Population", which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.
The primary argument advanced by Malthus was that the English working class was poor not because they were exploited, but rather because there were too many of them. Malthus opposed welfare and higher wages because he believed they would allow the poor to survive and breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem and leading to more poverty. Of course Malthus was terribly wrong about all of this, but nonetheless his theories gained wide acceptance among the English elite of his day.
Many years later, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vigorously promoted this type of twisted thinking in the United States. The following is one of Margaret Sanger's most infamous quotes:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Remember, that quote came out of the mouth of the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Unfortunately, the sick theories of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die out. Rather, they seemed to gain steam as the population of the world absolutely exploded in the 20th century.
U.S. environmentalist Paul Erlich, in his 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb", argued for very strict population control measures, especially in the poorer areas of the world. He warned that if we did not implement such measures we would be facing catastrophic problems very quickly.
Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, said this in 1984:
"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."
Unfortunately, the philosophies of Erlich, Schiotz and other population control advocates have garnered a substantial following even among powerful members of the United States government. Just check out the following shocking quotes.....
“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."
“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”
–Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs
The quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for radical population control has grown louder than ever before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the planet. Ted Turner said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and the global elite applauded him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, and perhaps even necessary, goal.
What in the world is happening?
How in the world did it become a good idea to get rid of 90 to 95 percent of us?
It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda.....
Population reduction.
Problem #1: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".
Problem #2: Medical costs are soaring out of control.
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.
Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis":
Get rid of a whole bunch of people......
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3908588.ece
The following is one of Prince Philip's most famous quotes about world population:
"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species."
Do you realize how the global elite sees us?
They see us as a "flock of sheep" that must be culled from time to time.
How sick is that?
Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.
But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of other sources:
John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London has said this: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."
He also made this shocking statement: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
Now there are influential think tanks in the United Kingdom that are even advocating that the U.K. adopt a "2 child" policy to help fight "global warming".
The infamous Club of Rome certainly is clear about who they think the enemy is.....
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
Mikhail Gorbachev made the following stunning statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
The reality is that we are getting increasingly closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated". Is this the kind of future that we want for us and our children?
The truth is that the world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While the earth's population is growing, the rate of growth is definitely slowing. The population of the world grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. However, authorities predict a rise of only 50% between 2000 and 2050, and a rise of just 11% in the 50 years after that.
The truly frightening thing is that many of you who will read this article actually agree with this radical depopulation agenda.
Many of you actually think it is a good idea to exterminate 90 to 95 percent of us.
Many of you have embraced the radical eugenics philosophy promoted by some of the wickedest men of the 20th century and you don't even realize it.
I challenge anyone who believes in radical population control to post a comment below defending your position.
For the rest of us, we need to understand what the global elite intend to do before the time comes when they actually start doing it to us.
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I'm not talking about the obvious environmental and resource issues. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
ReplyDeleteI should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)
Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don't know how else to inject this new perspective into the overpopulation debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
The results of Erich Fromm's experiments with food and rat populations half a century ago, show clearly that most animal populations and their populations are inexorably tied to the abundance of, or lack of, food.
ReplyDeleteGlobally, we produce 10% more food every year than we need to sustain 6 billion people yet millions starve every year, regardless, so reducing food supply would not be inhumane to individuals but would trigger our organisms' biological wiring to begin a reduction.
What harm would be done in steadily and slowly decreasing our food production by 10-20% over a ten year period to see if our population would begin to slow its growth?
While I am also wary of any government plan or scheme derived from the ruling elites, it is long overdue for us to have open discussion about the overpopulation of our planet. This does not need to be a Hitler (or Bush or Obama) master plan advocating genocide. It is simply common sense that many of our most pressing problems have been caused because we are too many.
It was our "rulers" who engineered and incentivized the growth explosion of the last century without any substantial complaint from Americans. They simply called for the subsidizing of wheat and corn and milk production. These plans were designed both to create false abundance and to centralize food production and distribution.
We can equally "decentivize" that scheme by buying real local food and by paying as little in taxes as possible to choke the agri-business subsidies. The organism known as the human race will decline in population slowly over time as centralized food production is replaced by smaller, saner, more ecologically-sound, farming practices and moderate food production once again becomes the norm.
Perhaps talking openly about "population control" should be taboo but not talking about "overpopulation". We ARE overpopulated and there are humane long term answers to this problem that we should be discussing that don't involve "guns, germs and steel".
Oprah Winfrey.. call her "super wealthy" but PLEASE do not call her "American". She helped destroy our Democracy by helping fix an election, the muslim jehadist PERSON she stuffed the ballot box for is un-American, anti-American and quite probably NOT American, certainly not by elegability standards, and she's done nothing in her carreer but sell America OUT.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of population controls though, why not? Maybe Gates was a better kid-programmer than I ever gave him credit for if he at least realizes what exponential growth looks like when he sees it and can fathom just how numerous 7 BILLION is.. beyond petty-cash, I mean.
I remember TWO billion myself. ONE lifespan. That should alarm anyone of any means, private, governmental or what have you, to downright panicked action before we have to replicate China's grown-up response globally.
Plus, look at the idea of extreme contraception in terms of human efficacy. Much of the products of several generations are still here.
This means with every baby not born, the world gets richer, with more means, with less struggle for resouces let alone huge turf wars.
If slight underpopulation is the ideal 'weight'. Humankind is MORBIDLY OBESE.
P.S.: "fascism" simply means the combination of government with industry above society. It's beyond the "socialism" that we've already eroded into, and if the United States wasnt already socialist enough a hundred years ago, under Obama we'll have the term fascism extemely well clarified for us the hard way.
ReplyDeleteIf private industry effects everyone on earth with say, mobile phones which effect our lifestyle as we opt into it, why shouldn't they push other, more directly social options? It's the GOVERNMENT who control industry without the concent of the people who should be called "elite", alegedly representatively or not.
When was the last offer any of us ever got to opt into or OUT OF government programs?
Maybe perhaps we need to wake up and get off our butts and start coming up with solutions quickly. We all seem to have this save me mentality instead of us saving our selves. Instead of us coming up with our own solutions. we want to badly to talk about the problem but when it comes to problem solving america comes off as helpless. Americans don't even realize that we have allowed these governments to provide solutions for us and we have allowed the capitalism program get out of hand. We did this to ourselves and we are only going to be the people to get ourselves out of this.
ReplyDeleteI have a solution to the overpopulation problem: lets have all governments around the world stop functioning for at least 90 days, if not a full decade. If government is necessary to keep people from killing each other, then no government for a long period of time should result in a massive reduction in human population in a matter of months, if not weeks, assuming government control always results in peace and stability.
ReplyDeleteNow, you would have to make sure that no police officer is on duty during this period of time, and you would have to disband all armies, unless you want them to stay with their families on base. Halting government means that every government official would either go home or go to a military base, their choice. No legislative sessions, no executive orders to troops or police, no government emergency response, and not even any payout of subsidies to anyone, including the poor and inferm.
If you want to save the planet, then the only way is to stop government from getting in the way of Nature. Nature will naturally cull a certain number of a species that cannot survive. Government is in the way of nature, unless you think that the UN's treaties have decreased global CO2 emissions. Aren't CO2 emissions at an all time high, as well as global temperature and global population? Governments have been most active in the last two centuries, and human CO2 emissions have sky-rocketed starting in the middle of the 1800s. Now government is not directly causing such emissions, but governments are certainly making it possible for such to occur, assuming that governments create peace and stability for such technological advancement to take place. Human CO2 levels are only highest because we have the technology to emit such an amount of CO2.
Lets have an experiment and halt all governments for a little while to make certain whether or not government is the problem, before we give them lots more power. We don't want to be wrong, since the environment and human survival is at stake. If all you get is more pollution and an increase in global population, then you know that to decrease those you need more government. Simple test = simple answer.
PS, I like this idea, and not because I think it would result in population reduction, though I do think it would reduce pollution levels. I just don't like government controlling even the smallest details of my life: no government control = Liberty = I am happier. I actually believe that government kills and pollutes more than any other organization in existence, so the above argument is meant to get environmentalists to realize that government kills and pollutes. Liberty or Death! Stuck the Fate, Guck Central Fovernment!
Let me ask this question. Who on this earth has the right to call for population control anyway? Does Oprah or Bill Gates, despite their wealth, more qualified to live than any other HUMAN BEING. Are they God?
ReplyDeleteHow about we rid ourselves of them before we even think about abortion or any other measures to curb the population rate. Population problems can be alleviated with a common sense approach to reproduction. Lets get the word out to people about the difficulty in having more children than they can afford. It is about being responsible.
However, once a child is conceived, no one has the right to advocate abortion to get rid of him/her. That reduces Human Life to a level no higher than the animals that we hunt down for game and/or bounty to feed our stomachs.
there is no planetary population problem. there is simply a problem of criminality. the inbreds have forced the over-crowded cities and have taken away the means of self-determination and sustainability from third world peoples. they have raped their lands of natural resources and taken away the access for sustaining life to the native populations. witness: haiti.
ReplyDeletethe only population that is a problem is the inbreds who are committing genocide and slaughter. eliminate that population, dissolve the vehicle for global governance, the UN, and there will magically be enough for everyone.
what a concept.
Several thoughts - 1. Before you consider the methods that China used you should research the problems that it has caused them now! 2. Muslims LOVE this conversation! As "we" have less and less.... they have more and more!!!! Think about THAT future!!! 3. This super team that assembled better watch out.... the Rockefeller's, etc won't like it if they start thinking they can get in to world politics and mess with THEIR world. 4. It's all just another part of the beginning of the NWO.
ReplyDeletePopulation Growth and Control
ReplyDelete(by P.R. Sarkar)
The socio-economic environment of society today is extremely restless and disturbed. In this abnormal environment population growth has been projected as a menacing threat to the existence of human society, but in fact this sort of propaganda is nothing but an evil conspiracy engineered by vested interests. No problem is greater than the human capacity to solve it. Like all problems confronting humanity, the problem of population growth should be tackled and solved in a proper way.
In the natural course of evolution, birth and death maintain the continuity of the never ending flow of creation. Every day, with the birth of babies, the parents and the other family members naturally enjoy great happiness. But it is a matter of sorrow that there are some people in the government or other spheres of public life who consider the increase in the birth rate a curse on the society. This negative attitude is definitely a blot on the human race, which has achieved a degree of intellectual development and scientific knowledge.
Population Growth
Is the population problem really a natural problem? The population problem should be considered in the context of two vital factors – the availability of food and the availability of space. Today human beings have sufficient means to manage their food. The earth is abundant enough in food resources to feed many times more than the present population. Due to lack of coordinated cooperation, collective effort, a proper ideology and sound planning, society has been fragmented into many belligerent groups and sub-groups, and rich and poor nations have been created. As a result of this fissiparous tendency, society is presently incapable of producing enough food to meet human requirements. The tragedy is that even though there are enough resources to supply nutritious food to all the human beings on the planet, due to the defective socio-economic systems, an efficient method of distribution has not been developed.
Moreover, there is no shortage of living space on the planet if the existing space is properly utilized. Because the earth has been balkanized due to so many arbitrary social, economic and political restrictions and the pervasive influence of evil dogma, people are unable to tackle problems in a natural way. If there were maximum utilization and rational distribution of all natural resources, pressing socio-economic problems could be easily solved.
It is a law of nature that a mother is provided with sufficient breast milk to feed her newly born baby. In the same way nature has generously provided sufficient resources to meet the food and other essential requirements of all human beings. People need to utilize these natural resources in a proper way. Shortages of food or space cannot be blamed on nature. These problems are essentially the results of the mistakes made by human beings.
It is a fact that the population of the world is rapidly increasing, and consequently many people have become frightened. In capitalist countries there are sufficient reasons for such fear. In these countries an increase in the population means a corresponding increase in the poverty of the people. But there is no reason for such fear in a collective economic system. In the event of shortages in food and accommodation people will collectively convert barren land into arable land, increase agricultural production by scientific methods and produce food by chemical processes using the potentiality of earth, water and air. And if this earth loses its productivity, then human beings will migrate to other planets and satellites and settle there.
If people living in capitalist countries voluntarily adopt birth control methods to avoid economic hardship, perhaps we should not criticize them. But it should be mentioned here that using birth control methods which deform the bodies of men and women or destroy their reproductive powers forever cannot be supported, because this may cause a violent mental reaction at any moment.
I agree....Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey....you folks can go first. How many kids do these Gods have?
ReplyDeleteIlluminati, Anonymous, zionists, Synagogue of Satan, population control freaks, New World Order... damn this world is crazy! To those who want to control population growth: If you want to reduce global population, then why don't you commit suicide? Do it! You will help the few sane people left on Earth!
ReplyDelete