Bill Gates wants 1 Billion dead.

Torakx

yekahs wrote: »

What do you think is a viable option to the problem we are faced with? We can barely feed the planet as it is, so how do you propose we solve the problem? We have some hope if we can advance genetically engineered seeds, but let me guess, you are against that too?

We are putting a serious strain on the planet ecologically, which will further excasperate the problem, making more parts of the earth unsuitable for agriculture.

While its hard to see exactly where gates is coming from in a 2 minute clip from an hour long lecture, I would imagine, he is advocating a higher standard of health and education, which the trend shows leads to lower birthrates. That is a fact. The third world countries are spiralling out of control population wise. Its a fact that humanitarian groups need to face up to. All you have to look at s the current crisis in Somalia, since the last major famine there in 1986, they have doubled their population. They do not have nearly enough resources to support that amount.

And before you accuse me of advocating sterilization(as you have said about bill gates), forced or otherwise, I am not in favour of it. Simply implementing incentives to one/two child couples would suffice. As we will never quell our apetite for reproduction, we need to educate people on contraception(including sterilization for anyone who wants it).

A friend of mine watched a documentary about Africa.I remmeber him telling me he saw aid workers passing out condoms with a pin going through them.If i find out from him where he saw it il try get a link.
I understand what your saying and would like to agree.i think 1 child per couple or 2 is enough especially for poor countries with limited resources.
I just have an issue now with Bill Gates motives.
I never used to think anything of him i would laugh at all the tech heads online saying he is the devil.I just thought it was because of microsoft bussiness tactics.
But i am seeing the other side of his works now and it is very very suspicious indeed.
Dont you see the link between him and Monsanto? And the rockerfellers?
Surely you dont think they are there on the other side of the world just to help feed people?Especially Monsanto!

uprising2

The whole system has got us where we are now, the myth that the world can't feed itself was made up by the same people who throw more food away thanthey consume at their big fancy fundraising dinners, the same people who pay Irish and other farmers not to grow food, the same people who tell us it's better to ship goods from the other side of the planet to here, even though we could produce locally.

GM seed's and crops etc are another scam, WTF mess with nature?, why put frog DNA into tomatoes?, GM patents have farmers fukked, and GM crops spread from field to field, chemicals destroy overworked land, again all products of the system, to be honest the world is a mess and needs big change fast, excess needs moderation, there is a way but not their way.

Kepti

Torakx wrote: »

If America and China were really trying to help all those poor starving people in Africa they might have overthrown its so called corrupt government by now and started bringing in food for people instead of feeding the gorilla fighters and taking peoples liberties,resources and debts.

Africa doesn't have a government. Africa is a continent.

PirateShampoo

The catholic church can shoulder a lot of the blame for the whole aids and africa situation.

mysterious

Undergod wrote: »

Eh, he wasn't trying to speak for you.



In addition to the other points, I think that means within a distinct group of people. He's talking about reducing birth rates all around the world, and genocide is killing a specific group (genus), so probably doesn't count as a genocide.

Still doesnt solve the problem, nor do they want to like everything else. Let's be real about this. They don't care about you, so please stop using these excuses as a way to condole or make it seem like they are thinking of the best interest of you and I.

They don't care. Its about their money, their lifestyle, their oil, their comfort and their big mansions. They can't control the world anymore because population is to big for them to control. They are not doing to just

"reduce birthrates" or "stop genocide"

The rich are the ones that create genocide. This is just ecstatic and quite unbelievable as to what I've just read.

The Bored One

Torakx wrote: »

But i honestly believe he is wrong in that, yes with the current method of doing business population in some areas and also resources will be an issue.
But i dont think it means the right step is to assist the rockerfellers or monsanto to destroy whole economies just for profit.And slowly bring about eugenics or at least assist in its exspansion worldwide.

Why kill or limit life when you can make room?
If Monsanto is using untested GM seeds and using devious tactics to create a monopoly,surely this is putting more people at risk instead of selfempowering them.
In america there are patent laws which mean if a farmers seeds or plants pollenate a neighbours crop with GM seeds then that farmer must pay a fine for breaking patents even though its just a few scattered seeds destroying his whole Non monsanto crop.And putting them out of business if he refuses to use Monsanto via seed scattering on farmers land on the sly.

This will happen in those other countries too mark my words.It is not a charity it is a bussiness and a corrupt one at that.
I wouldnt be suprised if these seeds were an experiment on the poorer countries to test Gm products and its effects over many years.

He is wrong to talk about eugenics at such an early stage when they have not even tried to fix any of these issues.

If America and China were really trying to help all those poor starving people in Africa they might have overthrown its so called corrupt government by now and started bringing in food for people instead of feeding the gorilla fighters and taking peoples liberties,resources and debts.

Regardless of the methods used to parcel out land and resources to the population, we're still going to have the problem evntually that we have more people than can be fed. And unfortunately the only time where we can really properly think about birth control and population limits is before they in fact become a problem.
If we don't plan ahead for it, then we're more likely to encounter the problems of eugenics/sterilisation etc that you fear, not less.

Yitzhak Rabin

Torakx wrote: »

A friend of mine watched a documentary about Africa.I remmeber him telling me he saw aid workers passing out condoms with a pin going through them.If i find out from him where he saw it il try get a link.
I understand what your saying and would like to agree.i think 1 child per couple or 2 is enough especially for poor countries with limited resources.
I just have an issue now with Bill Gates motives.
I never used to think anything of him i would laugh at all the tech heads online saying he is the devil.I just thought it was because of microsoft bussiness tactics.
But i am seeing the other side of his works now and it is very very suspicious indeed.
Dont you see the link between him and Monsanto? And the rockerfellers?
Surely you dont think they are there on the other side of the world just to help feed people?Especially Monsanto!

I actually skipped over your links earlier. I'll go back and have a look at the documentaries and read up on Monsato etc. and get back then.

Torakx

i know i dont have a solution and that this is an issue that will not go away.
It is not going to be possible i feel to overthrow the bankers and corperations in time to stop the damage they are doing and avert controlled major depopulation..again.
I have been hearing all my life about starving black babies in Africa and its at a stage where its in my face enough that i am desensithized to it and all i can think is when will these people stop making life worse for Africa.
Sometimes i feel like we should really do some bad things just to show the world that they need to do something now instead of sitting back and paying a charity which isnt helping enough to relieve there conscience should there be any left for those african people.

It is a mess which probably happened naturally through desertification( i dont really know the beginning) but i believe is being made worse now then when it started.Reminds me i need to find out when the aids epidemic started in africa.I want to see when rockerfeller moved his resources from asia to africa to help the needy.

uprising2

The WHO is to blame for the spread of AIDS in Africa through various vaccine programs.

Spread of AIDS in Africa driven by poor medical practice, report says.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/326/7387/466/a

AIDS and the doctors of Death.(book).

uprising2

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece


The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies
The elite agenda for global population control is not a “conspiracy theory,” it is on the record and documented.




Henry Kissinger: In the now declassified 1974 document, National Security Memorandum 200, Kissinger outlines the plan to use food scarcity as a weapon in order to achieve population reduction in lesser-developed countries.
National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) - April 1974
http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html


Global ObamaCare and World Population Control
According to Secretary Clinton, President Obama's Global Health Initiative will be "the centerpiece" of his foreign policy, and even though America is drowning in debt and the U.S. economy is floundering, he has committed $63 billion to his global ObamaCare initiative.
The Gates connection to the GHI is so extensive that it is probably not an exaggeration to say the Obama Global Health Initiative represents the successful transfer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's global health policies into official U.S. policy, with the costs also being transferred to the U.S. taxpayers
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2775-global-obamacare-and-world-population-control


Population Control Advocate Wanted To Sterilize Food, Water
A 1972 article about “The Population Bomb” biologist Paul Ehrlich reveals a nascent environmental movement grappling with mass sterilization, climate fears, “international policy planning” and redistribution of wealth. The article reveals dramatic parallels to today's modern environmental movement.
http://climatedepot.com/a/5446/1972-Article-Unearthed-Worse-than-Hitler-Population-Bomb-author-Paul-Ehrlich-suggested-adding-a-forced-sterilization-agent-to-staple-food-and-water-supply

Torakx

My god these people need help.Who gave them the remote!?!!

http://wlym.com/text/NSSM200.htm

National Security Study Memorandum 200

---

TO: The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Deputy Secretary of State
Administrator, Agency for International Development

SUBJECT: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests


Any way to check if this is real or not? there is no signature for a start but i dont know if it should have one anyway.
Would i be right in saying the American government wont comment on it or will deny its a real document?
Its kind of damning isnt it?

uprising2

Torakx wrote: »

My god these people need help.Who gave them the remote!?!!

http://wlym.com/text/NSSM200.htm

National Security Study Memorandum 200

---

TO: The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Deputy Secretary of State
Administrator, Agency for International Development

SUBJECT: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests


Any way to check if this is real or not? there is no signature for a start but i dont know if it should have one anyway.
Would i be right in saying the American government wont comment on it or will deny its a real document?
Its kind of damning isnt it?

Here it is here
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

and the official/original
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nssm/nssm_200.pdf

kryogen

got to say, population control is something i am in favour of

not sterilisation, or murder, just better control

the world cannot sustain the human population for much longer at its current growth rate

i am not advocating murder/sterilising/etc.

i just believe we should not be putting so much pressure on our planets natural resources, with modern medicine keeping people alive longer and the birth rate continually rising its just going to get worse and worse

Torakx

I have been reading that document that was put forward by Kissinger.
For the most part is appears helpful and informative but as we know from the lisbon treaty it can be taken out of context when the actual dynamics of carrying these acts out come into play.

Im a believer in being honest with myself and others so il post al the paragraph im interested in as i may have missed the with holding food part somewhere else in the document.

The part i will highlight is a little confusing for me.The sentence before it sounds like it is contradicting the statement that follows.

"In the extreme cases where population pressures lead to endemic famine, food riot, and
breakdown of social order, those conditions are scarcely conducive to systematic exploration for
mineral deposits or the long-term investments required for their exploitation. Short of famine,
unless some minimum of popular aspirations for material improvement can be satisfied, and
unless the terms of access and exploitation persuade governments and peoples that this aspect of
the international economic order has "something in it for them," concessions to foreign
companies are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention. Whether through
government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed
Materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor
involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero
population growth."

Taken from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

The parts i highlighted were all in the one sentence and appears to me to be simply saying " Short of famine,.... concessions to foreign
companies are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention."
But his comments before that sentence say otherwise or am i missing something key here like one of those other big words ^^

Overall the report seems to be focusing on bringing food into developing countries to aid hunger and create a framework for self sustaining countries.
I think i am going to need assistance to find the part where he encourages food scarcity if that is not it.

ps. it just occured to me that maybe it is a good tactic to create more of these issues like a need for food(which these foundations have to offer) to gain access to minerals that the west needs badly.Could it be that that the issue in africa was exacerbated just to create a major need to help to gain access to these resources?

uprising2

Torakx wrote: »

I have been reading that document that was put forward by Kissinger.
For the most part is appears helpful and informative but as we know from the lisbon treaty it can be taken out of context when the actual dynamics of carrying these acts out come into play.

Im a believer in being honest with myself and others so il post al the paragraph im interested in as i may have missed the with holding food part somewhere else in the document.

The part i will highlight is a little confusing for me.The sentence before it sounds like it is contradicting the statement that follows.

"In the extreme cases where population pressures lead to endemic famine, food riot, and
breakdown of social order, those conditions are scarcely conducive to systematic exploration for
mineral deposits or the long-term investments required for their exploitation. Short of famine,
unless some minimum of popular aspirations for material improvement can be satisfied, and
unless the terms of access and exploitation persuade governments and peoples that this aspect of
the international economic order has "something in it for them," concessions to foreign
companies are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention. Whether through
government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed
Materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor
involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero
population growth."

Taken from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

The parts i highlighted were all in the one sentence and appears to me to be simply saying " Short of famine,.... concessions to foreign
companies are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention."
But his comments before that sentence say otherwise or am i missing something key here like one of those other big words ^^

Overall the report seems to be focusing on bringing food into developing countries to aid hunger and create a framework for self sustaining countries.
I think i am going to need assistance to find the part where he encourages food scarcity if that is not it.

ps. it just occured to me that maybe it is a good tactic to create more of these issues like a need for food(which these foundations have to offer) to gain access to minerals that the west needs badly.Could it be that that the issue in africa was exacerbated just to create a major need to help to gain access to these resources?

The report shockingly outlines how withholding food could be used as a means of punishment for lesser-developed countries who do not act to reduce their population, essentially using food as a weapon for a political agenda by creating mass starvation in under-developed countries.
“The allocation of scarce PL480 (food) resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production,” states the document.
Later in the document, the idea of enforcing “mandatory programs” by using food as “an instrument of national power” is presented.

uprising2

On what basis should such food resources then be provided?
Would food be considered an instrument of national power?
Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can
reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a
criterion for such assistance?
-- Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people
who can't/won't control their population growth?
-- Should the U.S. seek to change its own food consumption
patterns toward more efficient uses of protein?
-- Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for

the U.S. and/or for others?

I found that on page 83

humanji

Torakx wrote: »

I have been reading that document that was put forward by Kissinger.
For the most part is appears helpful and informative but as we know from the lisbon treaty it can be taken out of context when the actual dynamics of carrying these acts out come into play.

Im a believer in being honest with myself and others so il post al the paragraph im interested in as i may have missed the with holding food part somewhere else in the document.

The part i will highlight is a little confusing for me.The sentence before it sounds like it is contradicting the statement that follows.

"In the extreme cases where population pressures lead to endemic famine, food riot, and
breakdown of social order, those conditions are scarcely conducive to systematic exploration for
mineral deposits or the long-term investments required for their exploitation. Short of famine,
unless some minimum of popular aspirations for material improvement can be satisfied, and
unless the terms of access and exploitation persuade governments and peoples that this aspect of
the international economic order has "something in it for them," concessions to foreign
companies are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention. Whether through
government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed
Materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor
involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero
population growth."

Taken from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

The parts i highlighted were all in the one sentence and appears to me to be simply saying " Short of famine,.... concessions to foreign
companies are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention."
But his comments before that sentence say otherwise or am i missing something key here like one of those other big words ^^

Overall the report seems to be focusing on bringing food into developing countries to aid hunger and create a framework for self sustaining countries.
I think i am going to need assistance to find the part where he encourages food scarcity if that is not it.

ps. it just occured to me that maybe it is a good tactic to create more of these issues like a need for food(which these foundations have to offer) to gain access to minerals that the west needs badly.Could it be that that the issue in africa was exacerbated just to create a major need to help to gain access to these resources?

The way I'd have read it is that he's saying they should help countries as long as those countries are willing to learn to sustain themselves. If they just want to continue living off handouts, then they should be cut off. I could be wrong but that's my take on it. It's harsh but makes sense.

Of course, the problem arises when it comes to setting the demands for a country to recieve aid. It would be simple enough, and has happened before, to make outrageous demands for local resources just to get some basic aid into the country.

Undergod

uprising2 wrote: »

GM seed's and crops etc are another scam, WTF mess with nature?, why put frog DNA into tomatoes?, GM patents have farmers fukked, and GM crops spread from field to field, chemicals destroy overworked land, again all products of the system, to be honest the world is a mess and needs big change fast, excess needs moderation, there is a way but not their way.

GM crops are a great idea. The problem with them is that the businesses that develop them engineer them to be infertile, so that every year farmers must buy new seeds, but that's an issue of business rather than GM. I do think they should be tested carefully before being released freely. I agree farmers should be careful about using chemicals as well. I actually worked in a place a few years ago that researched into these topics, was kinda interesting.
The goal ought to be sustainability, not short term gain. This is the source of much of the world's problems, as I see it.

In one sense, people have been always been messing with nature. Creating new breeds of animal is messing with nature, but we don't point at St. Bernards screaming "Abomination!"

bytey

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Ive argued this before, at some point in the future we are going to hit a critical mass in the human population, and thats when the **** will really hit the fan.

]

literally

Torakx

Im a bit wary of Gm foods.
Dont they use genes from animals insects and other things that are not plant related?
If anyone has article links for explaining why GM foods are safe i really would like to read that.
Its my opinion that something like GM foods where genetics are involved needs about 50+ years of testing before its used in the mainstream.
Isnt it possibl;e there can be adverse effects 100+ years down the line with human dna.
Also the fact you cant reproduce from those specially made seeds is dastardly.I wonder do they give the starving nations these one time only seeds.If so i think that is the hight of greed in an enviornment where people are dying of hunger i really hope that is not the case

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote:

Otherwise there will be Famine, disease and wars for land which can be farmed.

We have Famine, disease and wars today caused by the World Bank/IMF so the US can take over their economies.

Scarcity is a myth

Brown Bomber

This is a quote from senior Gates foundation Catherine Bertini the Executive Director of the UN World Food Program. speaking at the UN's 4th World Conference on Women.

"Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize."

http://proliberty.com/observer/prt0397a.htm

Gates doesn't want to feed hungry people or save the world he wants to profit from their misery through his patents investments in bio-techs and pharmaceutical companies through the CFR, World Bank, UN, Rockefeller foundation, media shills and all the other usual suspects.

Undergod

Torakx wrote: »

Im a bit wary of Gm foods.
Dont they use genes from animals insects and other things that are not plant related?
If anyone has article links for explaining why GM foods are safe i really would like to read that.
Its my opinion that something like GM foods where genetics are involved needs about 50+ years of testing before its used in the mainstream.
Isnt it possibl;e there can be adverse effects 100+ years down the line with human dna.
Also the fact you cant reproduce from those specially made seeds is dastardly.I wonder do they give the starving nations these one time only seeds.If so i think that is the hight of greed in an enviornment where people are dying of hunger i really hope that is not the case

Modified DNA in food won't effect the DNA in people.

Like I said, one time only seeds is a product of business (and probably the testing constraints) rather than an inherent feature of GM food.

I can't really make the claim that "GM foods are safe" but I see no reason for anyone to assume the GM food is automatically unsafe.

fontanalis

If the people are dead who will they sell the gm food to?

Brown Bomber

fontanalis wrote: »

If the people are dead who will they sell the gm food to?

That's straightforward. They sell to USAID/World Food Programme who offer it to the famine stricken state. The World Bank only agrees to the loan provided the state purchases GM food only. The state is faced with the catch 22 of experimenting with untested food or letting its people starve to death. The state is further indebted, Gates and the other pricks get richer.

fontanalis

Undergod wrote: »

GM crops are a great idea. The problem with them is that the businesses that develop them engineer them to be infertile, so that every year farmers must buy new seeds, but that's an issue of business rather than GM. I do think they should be tested carefully before being released freely. I agree farmers should be careful about using chemicals as well. I actually worked in a place a few years ago that researched into these topics, was kinda interesting.
The goal ought to be sustainability, not short term gain. This is the source of much of the world's problems, as I see it.

In one sense, people have been always been messing with nature. Creating new breeds of animal is messing with nature, but we don't point at St. Bernards screaming "Abomination!"

I only do it with labradoodles, but seriously like you say every domesticated animal or crop is the result of crude genetic tampering.

uprising2

fontanalis wrote: »

Not adding just compounding. With Eugenics you just jumped the shark

No I think you jumped the shark with that comment, it was the highlight of your contribution so far, all downhill from here.

fontanalis wrote: »

Wasn't worth it, sorry.

fontanalis wrote: »

If the people are dead who will they sell the gm food to?

fontanalis wrote: »

I only do it with labradoodles, but seriously like you say every domesticated animal or crop is the result of crude genetic tampering.

Do you see the title of this thread as "Add USELESS information here"?

fontanalis

uprising2 wrote: »

No I think you jumped the shark with that comment, it was the highlight of your contribution so far, all downhill from here.







Do you see the title of this thread as "Add USELESS information here"?

No, the title didn't match your first post.

uprising2

Undergod wrote: »

GM crops are a great idea. The problem with them is that the businesses that develop them engineer them to be infertile, so that every year farmers must buy new seeds, but that's an issue of business rather than GM. I do think they should be tested carefully before being released freely. I agree farmers should be careful about using chemicals as well. I actually worked in a place a few years ago that researched into these topics, was kinda interesting.
The goal ought to be sustainability, not short term gain. This is the source of much of the world's problems, as I see it.

In one sense, people have been always been messing with nature. Creating new breeds of animal is messing with nature, but we don't point at St. Bernards screaming "Abomination!"

GM crops are not a great idea, the scientist's don't know the consequences of their experiment yet.
GM Crops May Face Genetic Meltdown
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php

This article outlines the many harmful effects of GM or genetically-modified foods (known also as genetically-engineered foods) and representng lab-created GMOs or genetically-modified organisms.
http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.


There's a big difference between changing the genetic make-up of some thing and a St Bernard, a St Bernard is a dog, from 2 dogs, its not half Dog/Horse, it could have come about all on its own if 2 dogs had of met on a swiss alp for some romance.

fontanalis

uprising2 wrote: »

GM crops are not a great idea, the scientist's don't know the consequences of their experiment yet.
GM Crops May Face Genetic Meltdown
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php

This article outlines the many harmful effects of GM or genetically-modified foods (known also as genetically-engineered foods) and representng lab-created GMOs or genetically-modified organisms.
http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.


There's a big difference between changing the genetic make-up of some thing and a St Bernard, a St Bernard is a dog, from 2 dogs, its not half Dog/Horse, it could have come about all on its own if 2 dogs had of met on a swiss alp for some romance.

Where would these amorous dogs have come from, pray tell?