Check the user name.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuGmENTor
:coffee:
Printable View
Check the user name.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuGmENTor
:coffee:
Yeah know I was watching this documentary on HBO about inner city ganstas and a couple o.g.'s on the street were talking about how bin Laden and those guys have to defend there block the same way they (the gangstas) do. Right after he said that I was thinking, "wow, this was months after 9/11 and these gangtas are wayyyy smarter than the average American when it comes to politics".Quote:
Originally Posted by Eckolaker
Referred to in the sciences as “Malthusian” practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty
One of the few subjects I can find myself fascinated with and alarmed by at the same time.
IMO, Americans should have the Malthusian perspectives presented to them in a serious way in public schools, not just universities or private schools.
Here’s something I dug up real quick on it.
http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/econ/fa...rre/resenv.htm
I remembered when it was presented in one of my courses at school, our professor wanted to put some emphasis on it in a special way.
She wasn’t trying to force it, she more or less just wanted to say that this is a respected point of view, particularly respected by people in positions of power.
It sparked some interesting conversations among us in the classroom, but it didn’t last long because we had to move on.
Excerpts from the link above “POPULATION, RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT”:
“Six billion.
It is currently estimated that there is, or there will be shortly, six billion humans inhabiting the planet earth(1). The theme of population, and more specifically, overpopulation has been in the popular mind for the last thirty years or more. Schools, national governments, international legislative bodies, interest groups and the media have all but insured that the public sees the issue of population as a problem, and increasingly, in reference to natural resources and the environment. At the heart of the population-resources-environment debate lies the question: can the earth sustain six billion or more people? How one answers this question depends greatly on whether or not one sees population as a problem.
Is population a problem? Some would argue that yes, population is a problem in that the earth is limited, that it can only sustain a certain number of people (although no one knows what that particular number may be), that the more numerous we become, the poorer we will become. Others argue that no, population is not a problem, but that it is government policies, economic structures and the organization of society that is the problem. Some contend that numbers in themselves do not equal poverty; rather, poorly structured societies and economies foster poverty.
How people perceive the issue of population is critical, for it is by these perceptions that international legislative policies are formed, economic development packages are crafted, federal social and economic programs are formulated, and local sex education classes are designed. Thus, it is equally critical that people ensure that their perceptions are grounded, not in rhetoric and emotion, but in established scientific and empirical data. An accurate understanding of the data will enable people to think and act rationally with regard to population on a local, state, national, and international level.
Perspectives in the Debate Today
There are many groups taking part in the current population debate. All approach the question of population from very different points of view and with different motivations. A working knowledge of the parties and their underlying philosophies will allow one to sift through the diverse rhetoric and hold them up to the light of scientific data. Frank Furedi, in his book Population and Development: A Critical Introduction, (1997) has provided a brief outline of the variety of approaches to the issue of population.
The Developmentalist Perspective. Until the nineties, this was one of the most influential perspectives. Its advocates argue that rapid population growth represents a major obstacle to development, as valuable resources are diverted from productive expenditure to the feeding of a growing population. Some also contend that development in turn solves the problem of population. They believe that increasing prosperity and the modernization of lifestyles will create a demand for smaller families, leading to the stabilization of population growth. A classical account of this approach can be found in Coale and Hoover (1958). It is worth noting that at least until the early eighties, this was the most prominent argument used by many leading demographers and most of the influential promoters of population control. …
The Redistributionist Perspective. Those who uphold the redistributionist perspective are sceptical of the view that population growth directly causes poverty and underdevelopment. They often interpret high fertility as not so much the cause but the effect of poverty. Why? Because poverty, lack of economic security, the high mortality rates of children, the low status of women and other factors force people to have large families. They also believe that population is a problem because it helps intensify the impoverishment of the masses. For some redistributionists, the solution to the problem lies in changing the status of poor people, particularly of women, through education and reform. Repetto (1979) and the World Bank (1984) provide a clear statement of this approach. This perspective is linked to the Women and Human Rights approach discussed below. Some proponents of redistribution contend that the population problem can only be solved through far-reaching social reform. (See Sen and Grown (1988) for a radical version of the redistributionist argument.)
The Limited Resources Perspective. This perspective represents the synthesis of traditional Malthusian concern about natural limits with the preoccupation of contemporary environmentalism. According to the limited resources perspective, population growth has a negative and potentially destructive impact on the environment. Its proponents argue that even if a growing population can be fed, the environment cannot sustain such large numbers, population growth will lead to the explosion of pollution, which will have a catastrophic effect on the environment. See Harrion (1993) for a clear statement of this position.
The Socio-Biological Perspective. This approach politicizes the limited resources perspective. Its proponents present population growth as a threat not only to the environment but also to a way of life. They regard people as polluters and often define population growth as a pathological problem. In the West, the ruthless application of this variant of Malthusianism leads to demands for immigration control. Some writers call for the banning of foreign aid to the countries of the South, on the grounds that it stimulates an increase in the rate of fertility. Other writers believe that the numbers of people threatens the ecosystem, and even go so far as to question the desirability of lowering the rate of infant mortality. Abernethy (1993) and Hardin (1993) provide a systematic presentation of the socio-biological perspective.
The People-as-a-Source-of-Instability Perspective. In recent years, contributions on international relations have begun to discuss population growth in terms of its effect on global stability. Some writers have suggested that in the post-Cold War order, the growth of population has the potential to undermine global stability. Some see the rising expectations of large numbers of frustrated people as the likely source of violent protest and a stimulus for future wars and conflicts. The key theme they emphasize is the differential rate of fertility between the North and the South. From this perspective the high fertility regime of the South represents a potential threat to the fast-ageing population of the North (See Kennedy (1993)).
The Women and Human Rights Perspective. This perspective associates a regime of high birth rates with the denial of essential human rights. Those who advocate this approach insist that the subordination of women and their exclusion from decision making has kept birth rates high. Some suggest that because of their exclusion from power and from access to safe reproductive technology, many women have more children then they otherwise would wish. The importance of gender equality for the stabilization of population is not only supported by feminist contributors but by significant sections of the population movement. At the Cairo Conference of 1994, this perspective was widely endorsed by the main participants. For a clear exposition of this approach see Correa (1994) and Sen, Germain and Chen (1994).
The People-as-Problem-Solvers Perspective. In contrast to the approaches mentioned so far, this one does not believe that population growth constitutes a problem. On the contrary, its advocates believe that the growth of population has the potential to stimulate economic growth and innovation. From this perspective, more people means more problem solvers, since human creativity has the potential to overcome the limits of nature. Some believe that in the final analysis, the market mechanism can help establish a dynamic equilibrium between population growth and resources. Others emphasize the problem-solving abilities of the human mind. See Boserup (1993) and Simon (1981) for illustrations of this approach.
The Religious Pro-Natalist Perspective. Some of the most vocal opponents to population policy are driven by religious objections to any interference with the act of reproduction. They argue that population growth is not a problem and are deeply suspicious of any attempt to regulate fertility. Although some supporters of this perspective mobilize economic arguments to support their case, the relationship between population growth and development is incidental to their argument. For them, the argument that population growth is positive is in the first instance justified on religious grounds. See Kasun (1988) for a clear exposition of this perspective. Other pro-natalist voices regard the growth of population of the South as a positive asset that will contribute to a more equitable relation of power with the North. They view population programmes as an insidious attempt to maintain Western domination. (See IPFA(1995)). (2)
Not all people belong strictly to one perspective or another, as Furedi is also quick to point out. In fact, most people adopt different strands of argumentation pulled from the various perspectives. However, some approaches to the issue of population are more specific to particular aspects of the debate. For instance, the ‘People-as-a-Source-of-Instability’ Perspective only touches on resource and environment concerns, and rather deals more specifically with issues of immigration and trade policy.”
>Referred to in the sciences as “Malthusian” practices.
look at the history of eugenics
for the last 60 years, the eugenics use other euphemistic labels to hide their genocidal activities
malthusians and end world religion are just code words and phrases to hide the genocide agenda
malthusian agents try to recruit the more intellectual people in the genocide of humans who may rationalize the genocide for sake of saving the planet. the intellectuals don''t realize the shortages on the planet are manufactured.
these intellectuals see the genocide as a way to save the world.
the end world agents try to program the flock to consciously or subconsciously support the genocide especially on a political level. so a nuke war in the mideast is perceived as a good thing. these end world religionists may see such events as a way to save the world.
for both groups, it seems logical from their matrix view
so such phrases become code words for the new world order
here is a disinformation video on end times people and groups
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15044.htm
first the film wants to make people think that policy decisions are based on
end times grassroot supporters -> pressure american politicians -> to enact government policies
what a laugh!
when it is really
global NWO -> commands american politicians -> to enact government policies
the fake opponents of religious end timers and endtimers play off each other to con people
second, they neglect to mention that most demonstrations are staged by intelligence agencies with use of fake endtimers and paid demonstrators. so one has decorations around the big con
the film gives one the impression that one is being educated but is really meant to distract people away from the real "end timers" behind the scene - NEW WORLD ORDER
the leaders of end times represent the minions of the NWO or people serving the "antichrist" as are many of it's opponents
AIDS is a complex subjectQuote:
Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
When one is dealing with potentially micro or even smaller sized stuff, the truth may be difficult to find or easier to hide so one has to look at larger events.
HIV AIDS is BS. The government announced the cause with not even peer review. Researchers who disagreed were defunded. HIV AIDS was nothing less than massive scientific fraud.
The HIV AIDS theory of transmission from africa to america is another lie.
HIV AIDS does not even meet the basic postulates of what a disease should be.
The defunding of opposing researchers by government is enough proof that research is AIDS is a scientific fraud
I would guess the deaths in NY were likely caused by
a) intentionally tainted hepatitis vaccines
b) immune system destroying treatment
so was in essence a genocide of the gay population. most of the gay organizations are fake themselves so kept quiet.
i remember the prediction that hundreds of millions of people would die. At the time, i concluded that was another lie that tiome would expose.
The HIV test is bogus. Anybody getting treatment based upon such a test even after the government has lied their ass off would have to be an idiot
whether an AIDS virus or whatever actually was used and exists is unclear as it relates to the so called "HIV AIDS" outbreak
they are no doubt trying to create many biological agents to covertly attack the immune system.
when the UN sent out 5 or so medical people to africa to investigate the origin of AIDS, they came back and told them that people in africa who they though may be infected by AIDS correlated with the areas that were given vaccines by WHO. The UN promptly fired them. This is what happens to people who get too close to the truth.
Africans were forcibly vaccinated by their own leaders and cheiftains who are just minions of the NWO
the statistics that the governments put out on HIV AIDS rate are bogus
people who are starving, malnutritioned, have many other diseases, bad water, etc can get categorized as an HIV AIDS case. most are not even given the HIV test so a doctor just channels to the spirits on pluto for a diagnose
if the treasonous criminals were brought down and truly investigated, many people from the NIH, FDA, CDC, CIA, Pentagon, public health authorities in many states, politicians at many levels, state medical boards, AMA leadership, ADA leadership, WHO, UN etc would be brought to trial for large scale crimes against humanity
>The lizard thing is just silly unless you have serious proof.
never said anything about lizards. it is extraterrestrials.
when people demand "proof", it means they want the truth to be endorsed by the government.
there are extraterrestrials on earth. if you are waiting for the government to tell you then good luck. there is a literal who's who list of people who have already come out not to mention large number of people abducted by extraterrestrials. There is massive indirect proof.
someone would say that it is not proof. of course it is. if your waiting for someone in the government to tell you that Dr Kelley in UK was murdered and not suicided, that is like waiting for admission of a crime by the perpetrators
You want the people who are covering it up to admit the extraterrestrials are here.
You have those people who ask if they are not here , why don't they show themselves. I can think of many negative reasons why they would not. I can't think of any positive reassons why they would not.
Do you really think Phil Schneider committed suicide
direct proof of extraterrestrials is difficult because witnesses can be suicided, imprisoned or murdered by the NSA. most americans rather not know about it.
>As far as celebrities go, being in the public eye it's understandable that they would speak out- they'd be crucified by the media and public (maybe even literally) and would never work again as opposed to the rest of us.
let's see,
the sovereign and economic destruction of the US is taking place
the destruction of the US constitution and freedoms is being destroyed
WWIII has begun with Iraq
Concentration camps in the US have been built and more being built
forced vaccinations are being planned
depopulation of human on earth by at least 80 percent being planned
massive treason on the local, state and federal level is occuring
control
elections are being overtly rigged
cashless society being implemented
global totalitarianism and an implanted population is the future
and so much more
so you think they should be scared about being crucified by a media being controlled by traitors rather than the planned total enslavement of humanity in the future
if the celebrities don't give a damn about the future and freedom of the children on this planet then it makes perfect sense to just keep quiet
if their careers are more important than the future of freedom on this planet then that will sum up the character of these celebrities.
maybe these celebrities can put on a USO show for children being experimented on involuntarily by the government or even for concentration camp inmates. it would be so sweet
>P.S. Learn some social skillz dude.
if you want sweet talk, your not getting it from me
>Anybody know why the NWO wants to wipe out the majority of the world?
they are the only ones who can give you an official answer
> For the most part, the regular posters on this board have good intentions and are extremely respectful.
until i can see enough of the regular posters posting, we can just put that question aside for now
Qwerty,
Start posting direct sources for the statements you are making. I have no reason to doubt your validity, but as someone who is always looking for the truth, I want to be able to back up my statements and assertions.
For example you were quoted with
"when the UN sent out 5 or so medical people to africa to investigate the origin of AIDS, they came back and told them that people in africa who they though may be infected by AIDS correlated with the areas that were given vaccines by WHO. The UN promptly fired them. This is what happens to people who get too close to the truth."
I'd like to see a news source or documentation that directly supports this statement.
As for the people on this board.
That is my personal opinion based on experiences I have had with the members of this forum over the last three years.
Myself and Goldie go back to the grass roots level of the 9/11 truth movement.
Stick around qwerty,
I realized AIDS wasn't a big thing after reading the DR Doom article
Also, the cures for things like AIDS has arleady been found but big companies payed the guys who discovered it, patented it, and then burrying it. (apperently)