It's May 25, 2024, 06:34:32 AM
Total Members Voted: 4
I chose the top one, not because I believe you aren't a good person but just purely because you buy into this crap that the UN are the alternative, you have intelligence, I think it's about time you looked at the cold hard facts.These are; who the UN are, who created it, who runs it.
Quote from: virtuoso on March 05, 2009, 05:50:39 AMI chose the top one, not because I believe you aren't a good person but just purely because you buy into this crap that the UN are the alternative, you have intelligence, I think it's about time you looked at the cold hard facts.These are; who the UN are, who created it, who runs it. Im studying Public International Law and Human Rights Law, so I'm learning alot about the UN (maybe oneday I'll even work for it). I understand the position you always come from represents a perspective of the truth. But I never rest upon my convictions or beliefs, rather I challenge them and add upon them through more knowledge. That means even learning to emphasize with 'them'. If you can keep your sanity and integrity you may emerge through it with a deeper understanding. Constant challenging of your own beliefs and convictions is honesty with yourself. I'm not saying you should do the same, I think the political position you represent on this forum is especially essential, but really not the whole picture or the full understanding, still it is however a vital perspective. I think population itself isn't the ENITRE issue, because people in the thrid world don't really use many household appliances and shit, in reality their pollution and waste footprint on the world is virtually non-existant next to your average suburban teenager in the West. The real issue at heart is sustainability and conservation of the world's natural treasures. The problem does not stem from there being too many people in the world, the problem is the consumption and that most people in the world are striving to a level of consumption like that of the West, thats why; the more people=the more waste and consumption. However, it dosn't necessarily have to be that way, if the world's governments had strong planning around conservation and sustainability. Maybe it is again up to the West, as always, to lead by example. As for covert depopulation, I don't think it is a viable solution because it does not really nip the problem in the bud, it just delays the problem, inevitablly we will have to face the issue of pollution and unsustainability anyway, of which the industrialised world, not the underveloped countries, contribute the most towards. I know that in the Philippines (a Catholic country) it was the custom to have 8-10 kids per family and so on, now the younger generations are getting wiser and changing their attidues, only having kids they can provide a good life for (Hilary Clinton actually once said at Rockefeller Institute lecture; 'education is the key to population reduction'). "The point of population stabilization is to reduce or minimize misery." --Roger Bengston, founding board member, World Population Balance
we need to reduce the earth population by any means necessary. Of course it'd be better to achieve it without forcing people.Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' got it right: 'I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.'This planet can't handle so many people, especially when they live like we do in western countries. A decreased population would increase the overall quality of life.
Quote from: Rugged Monk starring as Illuminatus Overfiend. on March 05, 2009, 08:28:52 PMQuote from: virtuoso on March 05, 2009, 05:50:39 AMI chose the top one, not because I believe you aren't a good person but just purely because you buy into this crap that the UN are the alternative, you have intelligence, I think it's about time you looked at the cold hard facts.These are; who the UN are, who created it, who runs it. Im studying Public International Law and Human Rights Law, so I'm learning alot about the UN (maybe oneday I'll even work for it). I understand the position you always come from represents a perspective of the truth. But I never rest upon my convictions or beliefs, rather I challenge them and add upon them through more knowledge. That means even learning to emphasize with 'them'. If you can keep your sanity and integrity you may emerge through it with a deeper understanding. Constant challenging of your own beliefs and convictions is honesty with yourself. I'm not saying you should do the same, I think the political position you represent on this forum is especially essential, but really not the whole picture or the full understanding, still it is however a vital perspective. I think population itself isn't the ENITRE issue, because people in the thrid world don't really use many household appliances and shit, in reality their pollution and waste footprint on the world is virtually non-existant next to your average suburban teenager in the West. The real issue at heart is sustainability and conservation of the world's natural treasures. The problem does not stem from there being too many people in the world, the problem is the consumption and that most people in the world are striving to a level of consumption like that of the West, thats why; the more people=the more waste and consumption. However, it dosn't necessarily have to be that way, if the world's governments had strong planning around conservation and sustainability. Maybe it is again up to the West, as always, to lead by example. As for covert depopulation, I don't think it is a viable solution because it does not really nip the problem in the bud, it just delays the problem, inevitablly we will have to face the issue of pollution and unsustainability anyway, of which the industrialised world, not the underveloped countries, contribute the most towards. I know that in the Philippines (a Catholic country) it was the custom to have 8-10 kids per family and so on, now the younger generations are getting wiser and changing their attidues, only having kids they can provide a good life for (Hilary Clinton actually once said at Rockefeller Institute lecture; 'education is the key to population reduction'). "The point of population stabilization is to reduce or minimize misery." --Roger Bengston, founding board member, World Population Balance The third world doesn't "pollute" as much because they have not had the disposable income to do, whereas western nations have been built on consumerism. However you are doing it again, falling for the rhetoric of "pollutant" and sustainability, have you even stopped to think what that means, in order to combat the so called problem and ensure this "sustainability" it follows that there needs to be a complete micro management of every individuals life under schemes such as a globalised carbon tax. We are simply in the realm of semantics here, sustainability has as much goodness as the word reform does, it's all to create a perception of goodness while really it is dictatorship. Therefore the ONLY way you are going to see a massive reduction in pollution is through some sick manipulation of human life which is already going on via the vaccines, the water supplies, the aspartame in the soft drinks, and or a massive reduction in the living standards of the west. However wait a minute, the living standards for the overall majority in the west were not exactly flourishing anyway, in fact when you go to Europe, you look around you, venture outside of the main areas, it's PISS POOR. I myself am anything but affluent and indeed only a few miles up the road, well there is england's equivalent to a ghetto. I understand the view they were trying to indoctrinate us with now during our information management lessons, they were trying to convey the message to us, that you don't live in poverty, you live in relative poverty compares to affluence. They even gave this sickening example of a middle class person vs some poor guy in Africa. The intention was obvious it's a drive to make white people feel guilty for what they have and when it's laid out in front of them how fortunate they are, they will be more open to surrendering that wealth. However there it is again, the face of deception, it is not me who is screwing the poorest, not your average white person no, it's these hideous evil intentioned global bodies. They are the ones doing it and they are the ones who under the guise of the UN are being portrayed as wonderful. That of course brings back the tired old argument which is repeatedly spun that oh such and such a person gave up their prosperous career to help the UN and of course, good people belong but the goal of the UN is to sell people on global government.The wealth always goes somewhere and as far as pollution is concerned, well look around you my man, the dumping of nuclear waste in the rwandan seas, the creation of gm crops which is killing the honey bees, the millions of tonnes of depleted uranium which have killed and deformed god knows how many people, have affected god knows how many animals, the dumping of nerve gas into the seas, the testing of chemical weapons on a populous. So this idea of typical "waste" is such a sick, scandalous deception, such a brainwashed scam. Having said there are a lot of pathetic self apologetic self loathing, always gotta guilty about something whiteys out there.The media tells us over here that someone earning 40K gross is middle class, those greedy people, even millionaire doesn't mean shit anymore because of the devaluation of the currency's which has rapidly sped up since the 60's, so fuck comparative and relative poverty, it's all a distraction away from the ones with real riches and power.
My response was that whatever the average person pales into comparison with the real pollution and yet it's that which is being steered.
I fail to see where this idea of consenting nations comes from, sovereignty is precious, it affords protection, it makes people within the system accountable, it means that whatever is changed in that sovereign landscapes changes society, sure sometimes it's for the worse but at least there is some semblance of control, within any given borders, there is the power to change things. I am not trying to be patronising and apologies if it seems like I am being too abrasive I do respect your viewpoint and in a utopia, sure a global government might work but this world is insane enough as it is. Having said that it seems you are still going back to this fall out position of consenting nations, but what does that really mean? we are told it's good for us, the UN is sold through all manner of so called debates which turn into a promotion for the UN. Furthermore, the E.U is coming forward with a whole series of yet new regulations, they are turning sovereignty into a farce and if they succeed in ramming through their constitution, then a full blown dictatorship will have been born, that's not consenting nations, that's the elite fulfilling their plans to create a regional arm of global governance. This isn't consenting, Ireland said no, they are unelected unaccountable scum basically. Now of course every individual works within the system but they keep pushing and pushing, it's never enough for them, they have all the power, all the control, all the wealth you could ever dream of times 10 and yet they want more. As far as I am concerned, I am just a normal individual earning a below the national average salary and just want a bit of freedom.
All I am saying is I and everyone else have nothing to apologise for, there is an definite link between poverty and newborns, so it's simple, rather than lowering the standard of living, the people in the third world are allowed to develop, industrialised nations/consumer nations always have less babies.
However we also need to look at the bigger picture, the current policy path is done with the intention of brain chips for all of the citizens of the world. that's not my opinion, that was an excerpt from the MOD report looking at how things will have unfolded, or at least how they predict they will in 2035. Therefore the bigger goal, the purpose behind massively reducing the numbers, is to make it much easier to control the human race. I tend to concur with Jrome in that I don't think they will be successful but it does seem from the almost daily and weekly news stories that they intend to go ahead in an atempt to fully implement it.
Quote from: Dr. Ján Ïtor on March 06, 2009, 10:55:41 AMwe need to reduce the earth population by any means necessary. Of course it'd be better to achieve it without forcing people.Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' got it right: 'I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.'This planet can't handle so many people, especially when they live like we do in western countries. A decreased population would increase the overall quality of life.You sound like a Nazi, mixed in with Stalinist ideology just for good measure, if you believe that humans are such a cancer, well do the right thing and join lots of morons in pledging to take their own life.
I like the Tower of Bable, I like multiculturalism and the merging of consciousness, knowledge and ideas, also the increasing inter-connectiveness of nation's economies and interests is inevitable. I think that a good reason for the multiculturalism of Western nations is to ensure we have a sort of Noah's Arch, because underdeveloped countries are not as equipped to deal with natural disasters which we will get more and more of sweepingly violent now and in the not too distant future, whether because of HAARP, man-made, neither, either, or a combination of all; whatever your belief affords.Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us". -Genesis 3:22