Bill Gates not a philanthropist?

[blanning]

Eugenicist, promoter of Agenda 21, his father was the former head of Planned Parenthood.  He even admitted on stage that vaccines can and should be used to reduce population.  How do you think that can be accomplished?  I can think of only two things:  death and sterility.

[blanning]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vzFeiKH1jQ

Remember that global warming and the idea that CO2 is somehow evil is a lie told to get you to agree to carbon taxes, tyranny, and the goals of Agenda 21.  Real environmentalism and pollution reduction is a good thing.  Fake environmentalism used to push a political agenda is not.

I'd estimate that around 80% to 90% of the population in the US and probably all of the western world is totally oblivious to what's going on.  The global banking elite want a world population reduction of between 85% and 98% depending on who you ask.  And as George Carlin said, it's a big club, and you ain't in it.

Bill Gates is one of those who is promoting these dangerous ideas... the culture of death.  He is not your friend.

[blanning]

Did you vote for a capitalist last time you voted by any chance?

We're long past the point where voting matters.  I haven't voted in a long time.

By the way, I like the idea of capitalism.  The US isn't capitalism.  At least not anymore.

[blanning]

Clicked on link.  Read discription.  Hit the thumbs-down.  I suppose Bill Gates is also one of those reptilians, trying to take over the world?

Thanks, I'm aware of the lizard people conspiracy theory.

Did you actually watch the video?  You know, it's actually Bill Gates stating his opinions in a public forum.  No lizards involved.

[blanning]

If voting changed anything it wouldn't be allowed.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said "The greatest argument against democracy is spending five minutes in the company of the average voter."

This is both a cultural and an education issue.  So in a society that's intentionally dumbing down the education system while also debasing the culture morally, and you end up with a population that cares only about reality TV and televised sports.

Then you will always be at the mercy of banks.

We are at the mercy of the banks because of the Federal Reserve.  Get rid of that and return the power to coin money back to the government, then enforce some common sense banking regulation, or at least enforce existing laws and throw the thieves in jail, and you end up with an imperfect, but much more free financial system that's much harder to hijack.

Education matters here also.  I'm reminded of the famous Henry Ford quote about our banking system.

Well it certainly isn't socialism you've got over there. Fascism perhaps but that's just another word for unchecked capitalism.

It's a hijacked, out of control capitalist system rather than the regulated free market capitalism that everyone thinks it is.  What we have now, and what will become more apparent in the near future, is that it's fascism at the top, but communism for the rest of us.  So you have huge corporations that own everything and remote-control the government writing laws that benefit them while enslaving us.  And we're not allowed to own property or engage in free enterprise.  

Just look at the trans pacific partnership.  Large corps can sue governments and force the tax payers to reimburse them for "lost profits" if they pass a law that stop the corporations from doing what they want.  Sooner or later, it will be you instead of a government that gets sued.  Was there a perceived loss because you didn't buy something?  Well that's an extra tax for you!

It's slavery, nothing less...  assuming you're still alive to play this game.

[blanning]

For the record i think he is right. The population is too large. It needs to be reduced. In 3rd world countries there are people giving birth to up to 5 + children but can barely support one.

Why do you believe this?  What's the real problem here?  Is it that there's not enough prosperity to support the number of people?  Or is it that there's too many people for the level of prosperity that has been imposed on them from outside forces?  Is the solution to increase prosperity?  Or to decrease the number of people (by force)?

There's easily enough arable land to support all of the people on the planet and many more.  Just visit an agricultural based country like where I live, and you'll be shocked by how much food is thrown out, or could be grown but isn't.  I watch entire orchards worth of fruit fall on the ground every year.  I've watched farmers throw out thousands of squashes, an entire harvest.  Why?  Because the economics aren't there.  It's not worth it for them to bring the food to market.  So the problem isn't overpopulation, it's politics, economics, and logistics.  And you can't say that they live in the desert and food would never grow there.  Look at what Israel has done.  In 1940, it was a desert.  Now they export fruit to Europe.

If there's food and water shortages, whether the root cause is economic or otherwise, the problem is artificial.  The real solution is to figure out who's causing these problems and stop them.  And if you do enough research, it's easy to figure out who is to blame.  

You think people in third world countries aren't aware of their economic situation?  People in poor countries have a lot of children because their children die.  And they want someone who can take care of them when they're older, just like you.  So to hedge against high infant and child mortality, they have more children.  Isn't it a double standard for you to try to deny them that when your children are unlikely to die before adulthood?  What if when they made the decision to have more children, they lived in a stable area and could feed them.  But later, an outside economic interest funded a civil war and now they're starving refugees?  Is the problem that they had too many children?  Or is the problem that some wealthy jerk enabled a psychopathic warlord to screw up their life?  You think this can't happen in the US?

Overpopulation is a lie told by advocates of Agenda 21 and its goals.  

Stop worshiping money.  Reject the culture of death.  Choose life.  Always.

[blanning]

I have no intention of having children.  People who have loads of children are the biggest issue this planet and our environment face.
 

Why do you believe this?    If all the children are cared for and fed, why does it matter to you?  

I can't remember the exact numbers, but Beethoven was the youngest of something like 13 children.

There are enough children without parents or good homes.  If you really feel the need to fill your time with children then foster or adopt
 

I agree completely.  I have nine children.  The youngest five are adopted from three different countries.  After having experienced both adoption and having biological children, I would encourage everyone to do both.  They're great experiences for different reasons.

By the way, if adoption is so great, then why is the UN and UNICEF trying to shut it down?  

But population needs to be controlled through education not drugs.

I agree that education is always a good thing.  But you have to teach the right things.  And I don't think the world's population needs to be controlled at all.  However, history clearly shows that as you raise the standard of living for a society, birth rate drops significantly.  So what is the real solution to the population problem, if there is such a thing?

[blanning]

Wow what the fook has Beethoven being 1 of 13 got to do with the price of wet fish. Do you have any understanding of the environmental impact of each child. Especially in the developed world

What environmental impact are you referring to?  Each one consumes oxygen.  Is that it?  How about water.  They all consume water.  Maybe it's that one?

You've been conditioned to believe that extra children consume "resources".  Whatever that is.  And why should we care?*  Aren't resources renewable?  The ones that are really needed by that child are renewable.  

Or are you talking about the non-renewable resources?  I think the people on the planet already can consume non-renewable resources (if there is such a thing) just fine without the help of additional children.  Even if we reduce the population by half, the remaining people could still consume an equal amount of resources.

I think the goal of the human race shouldn't be the reduction of population or the reduction of resource consumption directly.  I think the goal of the human race should be a major attitude change.  The goal needs to be that we all work together to elevate everyone.  And you can't do that when you have trillionaire bankers creating false flag attacks, civil wars, and world wars so that they can own another country.

You've been brainwashed.  Stop it.


* I have a flippant attitude about energy and resource consumption because there are many practical technologies that could replace things like fossil fuels, but are not allowed to exist because of money (greed placed over benefit to humanity).  If you want an example of what I mean by this, look into Nicola Tesla's lab burning down.  There's evidence to suggest that it was arson, ordered by JP Morgan, for financial gain.

[blanning]

Good statement. But i think you lost credability when you accused someone else of being brainwashed. Never a good debating strategy...

Yet brainwashing exists today... carried out by the mainstream media and public education systems.  Maybe "propaganda believer" is a better description.

I don't need credibility.  The facts remain.

[blanning]

Thank you kesa. Most of people have come to their own conclussions. Just because a view is different to you own strongly held beliefs or agree with widley held view does not Make it any less valid or mean someone has been brainwaahed

Forgive me for making a reference to hitler, but it's apropos...  those people who believed "the big lie" in nazi germany... where their conclusions valid?  Or were they just wrong?

[blanning]

When I first saw this statement I thought similar to what that others have expressed. There is no such thing is "right" or "wrong". Right or wrong is simply an opinion - of an individual or of a collective group of people. As such, just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't mean they are right, wrong, or...brainwashed.

I disagree.  I believe there's right and wrong.  And that's a separate idea from having a difference of opinion.  Whether you think capitalism or socialism is better, that's a matter of opinion on which we can differ.   Forcibly sterilizing people in the third world because we believe they shouldn't have children, that's wrong.

Those who believe in moral relativism have been brainwashed.  I believe that's a fact.  But that's just my opinion.  :-)

[blanning]

I guess it depends on whether you have an optimistic, pesimistic or cynical personality. You seem to be the latter 2 while i am optimistic.

I have hope and optimism where I believe it's warranted.  But with regard to where the world is heading today, I see nothing but death and destruction coming... soon.  

I prefer the word "realist".  

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, continues to exist. - Phillip K Dick

[blanning]

I agree that is wrong.  It is not the population expanding in the majority world that is the problem It is the populations in places like the UK, germany usa, te so called developed world,  that are causing the real drain on the planets resources.

Which resources?

[blanning]

Fossil fuels.

So it's better to force people not to have children than to find technological solutions to the reduction of fossil fuels?

They metals and minerals we are force miming form places like Africa to make mobiles and computers.  

Again, there are technological solutions.  The only reason these things aren't recycled from old electronics now is because it's not economically viable to do so.  So should we force people not to have children only because it's cheaper to do it that way?

Maybe if we had a different attitude, we wouldn't need to replace electronics so often.  No one ever suggests that.  

Food will become an issue in the not too distant future

Listen to me...  there is no food shortage.   You're being lied to.  If a place has no food, it's either because someone is economically raping a country, or because food is being used as a weapon.  The answer to this is not to reduce population.  It's to stop the people who are causing these problems.

Us "educated" and "advanced" people in the western world think we have all the answers.  We figured out how to do it all.  We know for sure that there's just too many people on the planet for the amount of food and water we have.  We really have this farming and nature thing down pat, right?  lol  Such arrogance!  Not even close.  Wanna see how wrong we got it?  Watch this movie:  http://www.backtoedenfilm.com  I challenge you to watch it to the end with an open mind, then tell me how much arable land there is on the planet.

You want to fix fossil fuel usage?  How about we stop using all these chemical fertilizers.  They're all petroleum based.  What about all the plastic bags and bottles that are so bad for the environment?  What was so bad about wood or metal boxes, glass bottles, or paper bags?  I think they were all better anyway.  If we stop our world-wide plastic orgy, that might reduce fossil fuels right?  Plastic sucks anyway.

Did you know that my car gets more than 45 miles to the gallon?  It kicks the Prius' butt.  And it's not even available for sale in the US.  Why?   But let's not stop there.  How about making all cars are electric cars?  And don't tell me about how we're burning coal at the plant anyway.  For the cost of a new car, I'm about to go off grid and install a wind and solar system at my farm.  Why couldn't I charge my car with this?

My point to all this is that there are technological and sociological solutions to all these problems that don't require forced sterilizations, aborting babies, and killing people.  But why aren't we pursuing those solutions?  When it comes to blowing up people at wedding parties, we have the highest technology ever attained by humans.  How about we apply that level of research dollars and effort into something that helps people instead of killing people?  I guess there's no money in it.

Like I said way up higher, humans have an attitude problem.

[blanning]

I think most people are blissfully ignorant of the evil that western civilisation imposes on the rest of the world to supply the things that make our lifestyle what it is.

Ignorance is a choice IMNSHO.

I agree completely.  

If anyone wants to really see how deep the rabbit hole goes, go to amazon or youtube and search for "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.   That's a good place to start.

brian