Overpopulation is an united-statians mindtrip!!!

U.S.A. is 4% of mondial population.

U.S.A. is 25% of mondial pollution.

So don't buzz with "over"population, and see your overconsuption!!!!

 

The overpopulation myth was devised in 1968 by an elite, semi-secret organization called the Club of Rome; founded by Aurellio Pecci and has featured other prominent members of the western elite establishment, such as Giovanni Agnelli, David Rockefeller, and war criminal Henry Kissinger. The overpopulation myth has nothing to do with planet earth or the concern of the human race. It has everything to do with setting a precedent for international law and world government (on behalf of the UN), the promotion of artificial scarcity (which plays into the hands of BIG oil) and, of course, eugenics (another word for eliminating the "useless eaters" - as Henry Kissinger calls them - of the planet).

The Club of Rome is also behind the modern-day environmental movement, which I contend is a major front for the New World Order. This, however, does not mean I am against protecting the environment. I very much so am. I am simply against the people who use the issue of the environment to centralize power and control for their own means.

I think it's about time people wake up to this.

 

You guys are hip to a lot of shit, I'm impressed. For real, I'm not kidding.

 

Hi, everyone - this is really intersting stuff and really relevent to my article, also.

Thanks for posting.

 

That's ancient history pal and is irrelevant these days cos they are old ideas of the past from men who are now dead and are not propagated by anyone these days. Look at the welfare programs in countries like Canada and foreign aid programs and other international charitable aid programs, they pretty much contradict with eugenics.

"artificial scarcity" oh please, scarcity is a Darwinian (sp.) fact of life for all life forms simply cos living beings produce more offsprings than the environment can support and wasn't just not invented by BIG oil in 1968 as you put it.

 

One more thing pressed rat, oil as in all fossil fuels are scarce simply cos they are non-renewable and we're consuming them faster than we can find alternatives.

To everybody out there that thinks overpopulation is not a problem:
whether it's over-population or over-consumption it doesn't matter which is the bigger problem cos they both are affecting, ppl everywhere want the 'good life'. The more ppl, the more consumption, it's pretty straight forward. Even if we reduce per capita consumption, over-population will offset that. And how much will we reduce consumption. I'm an environmentalists that refuses to give up meat.

Large populous nations like India and China are increasing their demands for oil and with the situation that's going on right with Iran we are very likely approaching WWIII.

The more ppl there are, the more competition for resources and the more battling for those resources. This one result that Malthus predicted, wars and strife will be the true outcome of overpopulation, not starvation and disease (thx to technology).

Before you come out and say that it's politics that's behind wars I will say in advance that politics behind wars is a symptom of overpopulation.

Don't think pop. is a problem, hope you like wars.

 

It is not proven that oil is a fossil fuel. It's merely a theory. I personally believe oil is an ABIOTIC substance generated deep within the earth, as do a growing number of scientists in the field. We have more oil than we've ever had before. This is a fact! There is a lot of propaganda out there being pushed by the big oil companies, which is being used as a justification to hike the prices of oil and promote artificial scarcity.

Malthus was an Elite puppet. There is nothing more the Global Elite want than to kill off large portions of the world's population they find to be "useless eaters," and the idea of overpopulation plays right into their eugenics-loving hands. They are the ones who created most of the propaganda regarding "peak oil" and "overpopulation" that you spouted in your above thread, most of (if not all) which is entirely false and completely unfounded.

Wars have absolutely NOTHING to do with population. War has EVERYTHING to do with the governments that make war for their own gain - the same governments who create the propaganda that we are running out of oil and are living in an overpopulated world. All of this is a GIANT LIE which many choose to believe without question. They just regurgitate everything they've been told.

Think critically, instead of simply accepting everything you've been told as fact.

 

It's ancient history? How can you say this when you obviously know NOTHING about what I am talking about? The Club of Rome is still around today, and plays a bigger role than ever in promoting the "peak oil" and "overpopulation" myth. David Rockefeller isn't dead. He's old, but not dead. Neither is Henry Kissinger, who still plays a huge behind-the-scenes role with the New World Order crowd.

Even if they were dead, it wouldn't matter since the same agenda is passed down from generation to generation through these organizations and secret societies.

Welfare programs? What does that have to do with anything? Welfare does very little to help people, and is really just an excuse to impose more taxes which are used by governments as seen fit by them to do whatever they want with. Welfare is used to keep people dependent on the government moreso than it is intended to help them. This doesn't mean I am against welfare when it's done at the state level. But keep in mind that socialism has long been used to con money out of the masses in the name of charity, when in fact the money is going to very different causes unknown to the taxpayers. In America, socialism is being used to set up a high-tech police state.

Foreign aid? You have got to be kidding. International aid is little more than a front for further corruption of the people and countries the money is supposed to help. Most aid money never reaches the people of impoverished countries, rather it falls into the hands of its corrupt leaders (as is the plan). You need to understand that the problems you see in Africa were created by the globalists through institutions like the World Bank and IMF. The West has indebted these countries, taken control over the land and raped its natural resources. It has deliberately put tyrants into power in order to ensure that these countries are kept inpoverished and under their control.

Do you really think the West is "helping" these countries, or is it all a sham?

Well, not everyone agrees with Darwin, either. Maybe there is a reason why Darwinism has long been promoted by the establishment. Hmm...

Just a thought.

 

Sorry but cos I do not "simply accepting everything you've been told as fact" I do not see where you are coming from. I've heard it all before and you've given absolutely no substance to your arguments. You claim that oil is not a fossil fuel but you did not back it up and it still says nothing about its ability to replenish. That it may be abiotic is pure speculation, as is everything else you claim.

I know very well where foreign aid goes - squandered, which is why i'm not behind the popular activists Bono and Geldof on 0.7% GDP, they have failed to demonstate how things will be done differently to ensure money is spent efficiently. Still, our governments are throwing aid money and the Western gov't objective for throwing money is to buy the cooperation of the receiving nation, tho that is not what they get.

The argument that eugenics movement still exists has very little evidence. I've heard that Bush Sr. is behind the eugenics movement, if this is the case then why would his son cancel funding to all orgs. involved with zero pop. growth or family planning, it's not consistent with supporting eugenics.

If oil is renewable than it would greatly benefit Big oil to encourage the consumption of it and to expand it's market, not limit it as implied by the allegations that they are behind the so-called eugenics movement. Reducing the world's population would leave fewer consumers, which goes against the interests of Big oil, they want more consumers. Sure there may have been some individuals in Big oil supporting eugenics, but there are others who don't support it cos it limits market potential.

Your allegations are all speculation, they are not consistent with what we do observe in the world.

 

Whether it's a fossil fuel or an abiotic substance, BOTH are up for debate and BOTH are equally speculative, even though I personally find the abiotic theory to hold far more weight based on the extensive reading and research I have done. No, I didn't provide evidence, but neither did you to support your claim that oil is a fossil fuel (which also has not been proven). I don't necessarily feel like explaining what can be found by simply doing a little research. Google works wonders.

It doesn't matter if Bush cut federal funding for family planning, which is all a front anyway to appease the so-called religious Right. Groups like Planned Parenthood get plenty of private funding from the various tax-exempt foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Endowment.

Why? People are going to continue to consume oil regardless. Do you see any real cutback of oil consumption in light of the "peak oil" theory? No. You can make far much more money by saying that we are running out of oil - like I said, we have more oil today than we have ever had before - then using this to justify oil that is over $100/barrell, which I contend we will see within the next 2-3 years. This will not only line the wallets of the oil companies, it will help to lower the living standard of Americans and other western countries.

You say that eugenics would lead to far less consumers. This is probably true. But the people who control things at the very top of the proverbial pyramid, which are the central bankers, could care less about money since THEY print the money out of absolutely nothing. Thus, money means nothing to them. Power and control, on the other hand, means a lot to them. Yes, as crazy as it may sound to you, the world is controlled by only a handful of very powerful and ruthless men. It's this powerful few that exercise control over all the major corporations, as well as the governments of the U.S., England and Israel. They control literally everything, including the media, which has been known to push the idea that we're running out of oil.

While peak oil is being used to line the wallets of the oil companies, it also has much larger connotations to those who control the oil companies. The oil companies are simply a tool of the Global Elite, as are all the major multinational corporations. While peak oil helps to line the wallets of the CEO's and top shareholders in these companies, it is also used to promote artificial scarcity, which can be used any number of ways by the Elite and the governents they control, as an excuse to exercise more power and control over the people. The major corporations, such as the oil companies, are not the be-all-end-all on the power ladder, rather the means to the end. Even capitalism means very little to the people at the top of the ladder, since they're the ones printing the money. The people who print the money already have all the wealth they're ever going to need. To them, money is all about control and power.

Most people don't even know that the Federal Reserve is NOT federal and it's not a reserve. It's a private corporation owned by no more than 13 banking families. Such names include Rockefeller, Rothschild, Morgan and Warburg. Think of the power these people must have. These people work from behind the scenes, and you never hear their names mentioned in the news. People look to the corporations as the culprits of greed, and they are in a big way. But it's the people who control the money system who really have the power, since they ultimately control EVERYTHING. When you control the production of money, you control EVERYTHING. Again, the corporations are merely tools in this giant game, while the masses are pawns in the game.

The end goal of these few powerful men that I have been referring to is a tyrannical One World Government, in which people will be microchipped and everything you do will be tracked and traced. Think of George Orwell's 1984, or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, only worse. Sounds crazy? Well, the system is being set up right before our eyes. The police state is already in place. Yet, most people remain either blind or totally apathetic. Within the next 5-10 years we will all be living in a global version of Nazi Germany. I know that sounds outrageous and extreme, but it's where we are headed.

I know a lot of this might sound crazy to you, and that's understandable. But it would literally take hours for me to explain everything in a way that people new to the subject will grasp. I have been studying the Global Elite for years, and there are still some things that boggle even me. All I can tell you is that the world most people see is very different from what it is really is. Most people have no idea how the power sturcture is set up and how both sides of the political debate are controlled based on the information that is fed to the them via the education system and the controlled corporate media.

 

What Rat really means is - "Think critically about all opinions but my own, whilst simply accepting everything you are told by myself as fact."

 

She responded to me in a rude way, while sounding totally uninformed, yet confident that she is right. So I feel my comment was warranted.

Secondly, I wasn't talking to you.

 

I won't beat you down for that stupid comment. I feel the need to debate you because it seems you back out of most of the ones you are in. It is in my very belief that your thinking and your handling of argument is incredibly pragmatic and convenient.

You completely failed to answer any of balbuses questions in the "pressed rat' am willing to debate you thread"

I wouldn't feel that this was necessary if you weren't so bent on telling everyone else in disagreeance of you that they're wrong. If you say we're wrong, then we have every right to hold you accountable for it.

By the way, I'm not trolling you. I found this thread out of my own interest.

 

No, I did answer Balbus' questions..... in many other threads where the EXACT same questions were asked. I never back out of debates, unless the person is using cheap tactics to discredit me, insteading of using their own information to debate me.

Balbus doesn't have any information or facts, which is why he resorts to the tactics he uses. I don't have time for childish games.

 

The environmental movement is too complex to be neatly attributed to a single organization, your Club of Rome. Environmental issues is more than just the supply of oil. There are many environmental concerns with overpopulation such as pollution, lost of and destruction of wildlife habitat, soil erosion, waste management, global climate change, etc, areas where Big oil have no interests in so alleging that they are propagating the overpopulation 'myth' is implying that they share these environmental concerns which is quite a stretch, environmentalists are commonly at odds with Big oil.

Whether Big oil propagated overpopulation concerns is mute, the ecological impacts of overpopulation is more than just the supply of oil so environmentalists would've been concerned with overpopulation even if Big oil didn't propagate it as you allege.

The environmental movement also predates the club of rome. Anyways, the club of rome is only one of many think-tanks. To attribute all overpopulation concerns to a single organization of elites, esp. elites of Big oil, is quite the stretch. But then if you think the only population concern is the supply of oil, which is very narrow-minded, than I can see how convenient it would be to blame Big oil.

So what is the 'establishment' exactly. The established elite of Darwin's day and long after that were the high moral, christian elite who opposed Darwin's theory cos it conflicted with the book of Genesis and conflicted with what they viewed for Social Order. And I have read up on Creationism by those who support Creationism so if I

than wouldn't I just been as swayed to Creationism as to Darwinism. I do not just accept everything I am told as fact cos I hear many opposing sides so how can I. Sometimes I don't take sides but when I do it's cos it's more realistic, the science is more credible.

Anyways, I don't want to be drawn into a discussion of the merits of Darwin's theory cos it has nothing to do with the ecological concerns of wildlife habitat loss, etc due to overpopulation. Indeed with environmentalists being so concerned with endangered species, if our concerns were based on Darwinism and eugenics than instead of saying 'save the panda'
wouldn't we be saying
'eh, too bad for the panda but only the strongest can survive so the panda has to go.'

And you go on about Global elites controlling oil so that they can control the world. The Global elites of Big oil, banks, shareholders are not concerned with the environment so linking environmentalists overpopulation concerns with regards to endangered species, pollution, loss of green space, etc to the Global elites is yet another big stretch you have made.

 

I never attributed the environmental movement to the Club of Rome. I attributed the myth of overpopulation and peak oil to the Club of Rome. The myth regarding overpopulation was first introduced to the public in 1972, when the Club of Rome published their top-selling Limits to Growth. Today, the Club is still behind much of the propaganda regarding peak oil and overpopulation that is being pushed by the environmental movement, which I see as a front for the globalists on many levels, some of which I have already mentioned.

Most of the people in the environmental movement are great, loving, caring people who really care about the earth. This doesn't mean that much of what they are being told isn't being manipulated from the top down. Furthermore, I am not saying that overpopulation isn't a threat to mother nature. The 64 million dollar question, however, is: WHAT IS OVERPOPULATION? It has been long known to many critical thinkers and researchers that much of the "facts" in Limits to Growth have long been disproven as being either over-exaggerated or made up altogether. Yet, the environmental movement adopted many of these lies as fact, and still promotes them today.

Environmentalists are against big oil, of course. So am I. This, however, doesn't mean that they haven't been duped into believing things that are not true, which, in turn, is being used to centralize power and control.

The environmental movement, in turn, has played a crucial role in aiding the globalists in their promotion of international law, which is a precursor to Global Government.

No, they don't care about the environment. They simply use the case of the "environment" for their own gains, which is to further centralize control and power. To them, it has nothing to do with the environment at all. They simply see environmentalists as useful idiots to be exploited for their own means.

 

How convenient.

The reason why he keeps asking the same questions is because you fail to answer them, do the math.

 

And what are his questions?

 

How do they use the environment for there own gains and how do they use it as a front when they deny or downplay environmental problems. If they had it their way they would get rid of environmentalists as environmentalists push for restrictions on multinationals.

There are 'critical thinkers' on both sides of the table, Limits to Growth has yet to be disproven, for every 'expert' that disproves it there's another that approves it. Wildlife habitat is still making way for development, as long as this continues the limits to growth has still yet to be disproven imo. And I am not talking about that particular piece of liturature, how human population can expand indefinitely within the boundaries of our planet and not affect wildlife habitat has yet to be explained.

Of course there are anti-overpopulationists who will say that lost of wildlife habitat is not important and if you are one of those than I will not waste my time on here any further cos it's not worth the aggravation.

 

Instead of quoting them one by one i'll put it in simple english because I personally expect a proper answer to this.

So you attribute a lot of our theories or beliefs, and therefore our own thinking, for example leftism, anarchism etc. to tools of control by secret organisations bent on stabilisation of a new world order.

In my interpretation, Balbus wants to know two simple things

1. How do you suggest we tackle the problems you speak of?

You failed to answer this directly but simply recommended we learn about the workings of these secret organisations. As much as we can 'learn' about the nature of the subject, you still haven't produced any evidence of a practical alternative to the political systems we choose to follow, which to you are simply tools of the new world order.

2. Where, politically, do you stand?

Don't give me any of that guff about labels. You don't have to say you're a leftist, communist, libertarian, satanistic hedonist or anything!!! How you choose to live your life now or in the future doesn't have to be dictated by labels, but you can describe to us how you suggest a way of living that will work for YOU, and will escape the influences of governmental conspirators. A lot of us really want to know because it seems very few of the beliefs of people on this site, particularly i must add from the left side, do not suffer from your wrath - that is the accusation that we are all tools of the conspirators you speak of. Now the problem I have with you Rat, that while your beliefs might have a lot of truth to them, you completely fail to offer any alternative to the political beliefs you so willingly assault.

Imagine a man that walks up to a farm that grows chemically fertilised wheat. The man so righteously approaches the owner of the farm and says "your way of doing things is wrong, it is the new world order that is telling you to use chemical fertilisers, think for yourself." Then the farmer asks the man, "what do you suggest I do instead, if my way is so wrong?", but it is too late, the man has already walked down the road to the farm next door. Now this farm grows wheat using organic methods. The man walks up to the owner of this farm and says "your way of doing things is wrong, it is the new world order that is telling you to grow food organically, think for yourself.", so this farmer also askes the man "what do you suggest I do instead, if my way is so wrong?", but it is too late, the righteous man has gone off to another farm to tell somebody else that their way of doing things is wrong. Both of the farmers, confused and bewildered, try to track down the righteous man and when they finally do they try to ask the same questions, but instead of answering them directly he simply chooses to tell them all the ways in which they're wrong without ever giving any hint of what they can do to improve things, he then adds that they should not disagree with one another because this is what the "new world order wants them to do". So the farmers walk back to their homes thinking that the man is an idiot and keep on doing things the way they have always wanted to do them.

Of course the righteous man in the anecdote is you Pressed Rat. If you can answer my questions directly I promise i'll be fair and admit it. I have no desire to win any argument. I simply ask for an argument to progress, which in my opinion it hasn't.

I also ask your permission to quote these posts in the "PR I am willing to debate you" thread. Is that ok?
.