Please explain what you think that means.
Can someone debunk Vigilant Citizen?
- Thread starter newportrojan
- Start date
- Status
neverknwo
Member
It means as the world's population increases the world's natural resources decrease and at some point the scales will tip. Meaning humans will be exterminated.
The goals of the the world government's think tanks was to draft a report to sustain the environment. They had to find was ways to increase the death rate and decrease the birth rate. With Climate Change as the pretext to
fulling their goals. They laid out a 3 step plan to increase the death rate through war, famine and diseases. Using cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda using confirmation bias and suppressing studies that it did not like.
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec24/b65lec24.htm
Last edited:
Not exactly a prediction but it doesn't really inspire confidence when one of the most pampered and cossetted people in the world state:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/prince.html
Whilst overpopulation is a really serious problem and does IMO need to be looked at, I also see the likes of many such as Prince Philip who to my mind appear to regard the world as their playground and they want it 'just so'. It is like all the people who kicked up the dust about wildlife in Africa being destroyed, they were the very same people who actually did it, some going out in the morning and coming back with 18 dead lions which they shot for sport. Great white hunters indeed.Printed in The American Almanac, August 25, 1997.His Royal Virus
Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.
When they realised it was unsustainable, the poachers turned wardens and set up wildlife reserves, evicting the natives from lands that they had had for generations.
Then of course there are statements like these:
Yes it is ambiguous... but perhaps he should have made it less so if he didn't want it interpreted incorrectly. And what does 'voluntarily' actually mean anyway?Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.''
Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?
A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed--not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.
But look at it this way... where is most of the disease, starvation and war? Africa, ME, places whith relatively low population and immense natural resources!
Last edited:
No, it doesn't. Limited resources means that population grown is self limiting. The goal is to find a way of not having that limiting be too painful. Reducing the current rate of population growth is a good way.
Perhaps Prince Philip is not the best person to look for to gain confidence about the future direction of the world, seeing as he has nothing to do with it. Besides, that's a bit of a misquote (seems like a back-translation from a German paraphrasing). The original is:
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.
lemonlover
Member
What do you mean "conformation bias?"David Rocefeller admits it. And George Green talks it in that video where he also talks about the recession, which has obviously happened. It's nothing like the bible. There are videos of jesus. There are loads of other videos of politicians tralking about/calling for a new world order. Here's one of Kissinger he says "because of how much Obama is adored it is a great opportunity for him to create a "New world order" ....... This is evidence clear as day, that the New World order is real.
Some people will never be connived and will always deny everything even when clear evidence is put in front of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
neverknwo
Member
Are We in the Middle of a Sixth Mass Extinction?
It's their own words. They are calling it the 6th Extinction Event.
Human activity is driving Earth's 'sixth great extinction event ...
The Sixth Great Extinction: A Silent Extermination –
It's their own words. They are calling it the 6th Extinction Event.
Human activity is driving Earth's 'sixth great extinction event ...
The Sixth Great Extinction: A Silent Extermination –
Last edited by a moderator:
That's just one guy's monument. It's not "their" words. It just what you think they think.
Last edited:
THose links are nothing to do with a reduction in human population, it's about the extinction of other species. So why did you post them?
neverknwo
Member
Is Ted Turner the mystery philanthropist who erected the georgia guidestones or is it just what I think they think?
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Wow Kissinger said a new world order can be created. You don't think that could mean changes to the geopolitical field? What makes you think he means a one world government?
Yes I had added that and some more.
OOI, here is a nice little definition of 'man', from the devils dictionary, lol about the inclusion of Canada, anyone know what that is about?:
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/m.html
MAN, n.
An animal so lost in rapturous contemplation of what he thinks he is as to overlook what he indubitably ought to be. His chief occupation is extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada.
When the world was young and Man was new,
And everything was pleasant,
Distinctions Nature never drew
'Mongst kings and priest and peasant.
We're not that way at present,
Save here in this Republic, where
We have that old regime,
For all are kings, however bare
Their backs, howe'er extreme
Their hunger. And, indeed, each has a voice
To accept the tyrant of his party's choice.
A citizen who would not vote,
And, therefore, was detested,
Was one day with a tarry coat
(With feathers backed and breasted)
By patriots invested.
"It is your duty," cried the crowd,
"Your ballot true to cast
For the man o' your choice." He humbly bowed,
And explained his wicked past:
"That's what I very gladly would have done,
Dear patriots, but he has never run."
Apperton Duke
MANES, n.
Last edited by a moderator:
solrey
Senior Member.
Ummm, a thing called satire?
neverknwo
Member
Since their theory is that humans cause climate change, species will go extinct, the effects ripple throughout eco-system and lead right back to our survival and the evolutionary snowball effect will keep playing out in front of all of us.
And so......? How is this relevant?
I gathered that but I still don't understand why Canada should be picked out. Any ideas?
It's a joke, because Canada is considered bleak and inhospitable by some Americans. So it's not part of the habitable Earth.
Is that what he is saying then? Is that the definition? Is it understood by the elite or enlightened but not by the average Joe.
There is no "official" definition. It's just like saying "a new state of affairs", or "a different situation".
But there is some historical background to the usage in politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)
If you read the entire thing it should be clear that they are not all talking about the same thing, except in the sense that it's a geopolitical change.
lemonlover
Member
Because I believe it goes along with the so called "conspiracy theory" on a one world government, world army, currency etc. Of course nobody is going to come out and say "we want a new world order a one world government, currency, army, bank etc" Like Brice Taylor says they do not see the rest of us as human. George Green also says this in his video.
neverknwo
Member
It's relevant to your question but not to this thread. You asked about who was the latest discussing abortion and extermination .
I was making the point about runaway climate change that will make Earth uninhabitable as tipping points are crossed and evolution goes into overdrive.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which was carried out between 2001 and 2005 to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their contributions to human well-being. You may not like calling it an extermination plan, but it's models fit right in with their discussions to increase the death rates and decrease the birth rates.
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/EnvSci102PPT/102Chapter7.pptx
Love the Avatar, it's a perfect fit, thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Really someone talked about the 'psycology of the mob' in the 1700's? I think the use of that term rules out something written in the 1700's.
Although mobs and crowds have always existed since humans gathered together, the study of the psychological underpinnings of crowd phenomenon only began in the decades just prior to 1900 as European culture was imbued with thoughts of the fin de siècle
Last edited by a moderator:
But the phenomenon of "the mob" in politics has been discussed since antiquity. The section on the mob is just reflecting Plato's Republic, from 2300 years ago.
And also Aristotle's view that democracy will degenerate into anarchy via mob rule.The people have a protector who, when once he tastes blood, is converted into a tyrant. The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.
Yes, that is quite clear.
How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus.
What tale?
The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to become a wolf. Did you never hear it?
O yes.
And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders them, making the life of man to disappear, and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizens; some he kills and others he banishes, at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands: and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf—that is, a tyrant?
Inevitably.
Describing it as "mob psychology" is just modern commentary.
Last edited:
Nobody is discussing increasing death rates.
Nobody is saying they did. That's just how William Guy Carr described something.
neverknwo
Member
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Have you got a reliable source? I have Googled George Green and outside of a few videos I can't find much. "I get my information from aliens from the Pleiades" usually for me is not a trustworthy point of reference.
SR1419
Senior Member.
it wasn't a value judgement. It is simply pointing out that what you believe is "new"...isn't.
Strangely naive comments. There are always external threats- especially in economics...ever heard of the Black Swan? Then you prognosticate about future (I assume you are speaking of the future because you comments seem to disregard current events) based on what...your feelings? You seem to neglect the egalitarian nature of technology. Do you consider Occupy "obsolete"? I think you underestimate the "oppressed".
It may seem that way on paper....but do you really think the US will go to war with China to protect Taiwan? Or go to war with Russia? "dominance" is really about perception...and that perception is changing. Again, you charge that the Iraq wars were driven by corporate greed. I showed how monies from US contracts in Iraq were miniscule compared to real corporate cash flow...I showed how the US oil companies really haven't benefited that much from Iraq contracts as much as other nation's oil companies....and yet you simply ignore the facts for your anti-corporate spin. Its very naive and not reflective of the facts to suggest Iraq wars were simply about "monetary interests". As I mentioned before and you conveniently ignored; the vast majority of your "mind-blowing profits" have nothing to do with the Iraq war or military action at all.
Oh indeed! but which corporations are influencing Chinese policy? DO you really think Monsanto is buying Chinese politicians or dictating policy? ExxonMobile? Who exactly? How do these multi-nationals buy lobbyists in China or Russia or India etc...? DO you really think that the Gazprom and China's state oil company want to collude and collaborate with Shell and Exxon to rule the World? Or are they fierce competitors?...and if they ARE buying their way in, how is that fundamentally different than corruption throughout history? Is simply the fact that they can skype each other to make bribes? is that whats "new"?
Really? I addressed the oil companies- you simply ignored the facts. Please quantify- how much $$ did ExxonMobile get from US government contracts? They do have some exploration contracts in Iraq - but Shell has more and China's state oil company is about to become the largest player in Iraq oil.
Wow...really? come on Grieves you should be more diligent than that- Cook WAS a politician. He was elected to the House of Commons and was an MP for over 25yrs.
he WAS drawing loose lines- he extrapolated that since CIA funded the Mujahedin that means the CIA "armed and trained" OBL. Despite absolutely no evidence of that. You put so much stock in this one politician's comment that you ignore the lack of evidence for the actual claim. Pretty standard I guess.
I am sorry- which point was OBL clear on? He stated unequivocally that "Al Qaeda" was the name given to him by the CIA? Please provide reference.
this quote from OBL seems to contradict your assertion
Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
"The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed".[69]
Thats funny because I was just thinking the same thing about you...the nonsense that you purvey clouds your judgement to point of not being able to truly put things in historical perspective- whinging instead about "Global Military and Economic Control" without even thinking about whether its even possible.
Last edited:
lemonlover
Member
What evidence contradicts what David Rockefeller and George Green said? I believe when Kissinger talks about a new world order he means a world government, currency, army etc. There is also another video of George Green where he says that they are going to be using "one of the machines they've got" to create more natural disasters in America. Then Obama will use one of these disasters to shut everything down.
What you think is irrelevant. It's what you can support with evidence that is important - the reasons why you think what you think.
Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
Such philanthropy, as Dean Inge has so unanswerably pointed out, is kind only to be cruel, and unwittingly promotes precisely the results most deprecated. It encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.
--Margaret SangerEugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in the welfare of the world fifteen or twenty generations in the future. On its negative side it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms that have become extinct. At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. --Darwin
Eric Pianka and some others, about as openly as can be expected given the history of their "biological thinking"/Nazism.
Pianka:
I'm not sure what the point is. Some people want to "save the planet"... as if every single living thing on it isn't headed the way of the Dodo? There is nothing new under the sun.... I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. [....]
Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls...
AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."
Doctor Doom, Eric Pianka, Receives Standing Ovation from Texas Academy of Science
But in the meantime, it's too bad that the "policemen of knowledge" don't seem interested in creating "free" energy devices instead or in trying to use bacteria as fuel and so forth. Too busy with imagining using or letting the Ebola or some other virus eliminate 90% of the people on earth in order to save... nothing, it would seem. Or perhaps the idea is to let a few lizards live a little longer than they would have otherwise before going extinct? This seems to go back to Darwinian creation myths, the idea of scarcity*... and the idea that life will naturally come from death or "order out of chaos" instead of life always begetting life. (I.e. what the actual experimental and empirical evidence shows, as Pasteur's flasks still sit devoid of life in a museum somewhere so far as I know.)
In any event, if anything like that were to happen due to a collection of academic clowns that probably haven't invented any technology or created a single bit of wealth for mankind in their useless lives then we'd be back to made it happen on purpose or let Ebola happen on purpose, huh? It's hard to tell with some of these clowns and mental midgets sometimes. They might just be that dumb.
*I thought everyone was supposed to starve to death a hundred years ago?
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
wow thanks, very interesting. What year was the book published?
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
Stanger is just saying that in the context of when a child is going to die of disease and starvation anyway. She is not advocating killing children to reduce the population, she is questioning the morality of bringing children into a world when they will most likely die within twelve months. She's describing a situation she wants to avoid.
1958. Here it is:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Yay a paragraph that actually explains something. Good to know your mission statement.
It will of course be of absolutely no interest or concern to you that I find your meandering posts still largely unreadable and passive-aggressively patronising, but if you're having fun and getting somewhere then I'm glad to hear it.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
A concern about overpopulation and maintaining a viable environment to support life on the planet does not equate saying they want to abort and exterminate people.
- Status
Similar threads
