We must reject materialism or we will sacrifice our future. NWO wants you erased and replaced.

It is quite apparent that every effort is being made by the elite to "educate" you into not wanting to have children. Educational forces tell children the world has too many people and it is THEIR responsibility to not have kids, the media tag-teams this by promoting greed, selfishness and making tradition look at best silly and worse evil. There are foundations that pressure the media to write in stories promoting later marriage, small families and optional parenthood into the story lines of programs most people do not suspect an agenda driving. And then when we look at people just buying into their own genocide? One wonders if the NWO sits back and laughs at how easy it is to herd the sheep.

You are 100% correct!
We will disappear from the face of the earth as the humanity we now are unless we kill them all.......

The problem with this is that if you don't have children, you have less expenses. The less expenses you have the more money you have to buy material things. Since you do not have anyone to leave it to, you go do more traveling to spend the money also. This leaves a comparable carbon footprint to what having kids does. I know if I did not have kids and grandkids, I would own all sorts of good junk, leaving it in a will to people who aren't even related. Now the government likes when people die without heirs, the money goes to the government and lawyers.

a reply to: edward777

For me, the decision to not have kids stems from the reality that I don't want to provide the nwo with more servants. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I brought life into this type of world situation. If people with more means than I have want to have families, that's great, you can probably find meaning in the material world alone. I require something more from this life.

a reply to: rickymouse

i dont know about that, i mean you have to buy your kids food, clothes, medicine, education ect.

The only people who will ever have anything in the current system are the cogs in the machine. Everyone else is to be ground into a fine dust and scattered to the 4 winds. The earth isnt too cowded. It's mismanaged. Our resources are squandered living a lifestyle that's wasteful and unsustainable. If not for the greed of a few our lives would be 100x more fulfilling. We either find some balance and fast or teeter over the edge. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

originally posted by: rustyclutch
The only people who will ever have anything in the current system are tho cogs in the machine. Everyone else is to be ground into a fine dust and scattered to the 4 winds. The earth isnt too cowded. It's mismanaged. Our resources are squandered living a lifestyle that's wasteful and unsustainable. If not for the greed of a few our lives would be 100x more fulfilling. We either find some balance and fast or teeter over the edge. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

You got that right. I have seen what people throw away. Nobody wants to fix anything anymore, and even if you did want to fix it, the replacement parts are too expensive or discontinued. People waste a lot of food, buying more than they can use. Our system is set up that way though, designed to have us waste.

a reply to: rickymouse

cyclical consumption and planned obsolescence. It's the only way they got rich. Soon they'll have us paying for air. We already pay for water.

a reply to: edward777
This is not a new thought, that there are too many people.
My mother has been telling me since the sixties I was the one too many.
My brother and I have no kids, but my sister had four in four years.
We were basically told not to have kids (I didn't want any, anyway)- because four was just enough, one for each of us and the dad.
It didn't work that way.
The mom took off to 'Find herself' and I woke up one morning to four kids on my front stoop.

Kids Are a materialistic expenditure. They need beds, shoes, clothes, transportation to school, etc.. Sometimes the childless aren't greedy, self-serving a-holes that travel the world and drink fancy wine. When someone decides not to have kids, sometimes it's a sacrifice, to give the already here kids a better life.

If you see young couples having a fancy time while you are vacationing, please don't look down your nose at them for being selfish- they might be my sisters' kids. I shoved them out of the house to travel the world before they could decide to settle down to baked beans on toast for supper.

originally posted by: November5
a reply to: edward777

For me, the decision to not have kids stems from the reality that I don't want to provide the nwo with more servants. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I brought life into this type of world situation. If people with more means than I have want to have families, that's great, you can probably find meaning in the material world alone. I require something more from this life.

And if you don't have children, the NWO will just import a stream of work visa workers from elsewhere. The only thing you have stopped is your own culture. If you want to fight them, you need more children to pass on your cultural values to.

originally posted by: stormcell

And if you don't have children, the NWO will just import a stream of work visa workers from elsewhere. The only thing you have stopped is your own culture. If you want to fight them, you need more children to pass on your cultural values to.

I think it's safe to say the nwo is going to keep importing streams of work visa workers whether or not I have children. Unfortunately, my culture is multi-culturalism, which is no culture at all really. I'm not interested in fighting the nwo, that's what it wants, more conflict. It doesn't matter whether you side with the nwo or don't side with it, so long as you choose a side [divide and conquer]. The disparty between how much opportunity is available between have and have not is too great now, and will only get worse as greed knows no bounds, and there are more and more greedy people coming up every day. Personally I don't think [they] want less population in the world. I believe they love things how they are now. People fighting one another over who we should and shouldn't fight while they enjoy 150 foot yachts and the best vacations you can can't even imagine.

The idea of not having children so as to deprive the NWO of units of production reminds me of Jim Jones at Jonestown telling his followers that the way to get back at the world would be to drink the poison Kool Aid. It makes as much sense. Look, the Roman Empire fell but there are still Italians who carry the cultural traditions as well as the genetics of their ancestors. The same will be true of the American Empire when it falls. The people who will build something new will be the descendants of people having kids today; those who forgo reproduction will merely be cultural and genetic dead ends who will not have a stake in the future.

a reply to: edward777

I found I did not feel vulnerable until I had my kids. I now have a grandchild and I do fear or more wonder what her future will be like.

We are in very interesting times though with the idea that free energy is actually available, batteries that can store electricity etc and we should all be pushing our governments to invest in things that actually help our future and not the old oil and pollutants the NWO has made its money from. Someone mentioned to me that some of the NWO powerbrokers are very old men now - apart from those along for the ride by hereditary or promotion by these men and nothing lasts forever as their anonomous side is being exposed and we know who they are and what they get up to.

(We have a huge scandal (a bit was leaked apparently on facebook a few days ago) and although disappeared by the PTB Theresa May our Home Secretary is having to make a statement in Parliament today. I think about the things some of our very powerful men and pop singers have got up to in the 1970's and 1980's and it should expose a lot about our Establishment wallies). Currently they are being protected purely because of what they may leak eg whom they will name, in court or put on the net, especially if they think they are under threat and beyond Establishment help via Mr Vaz).

We have demonstrated that as publics we are not interesting in fighting wars, many that don't threaten our own countries and the bankers don't have that many options left, except to make false-flags that will completely enrage us into action - but again I think many now look too closely at what is going on and will weigh the option against the expense.

Its funny how the premise of this topic keeps coming up, but no one replying ever connects how its related to similar earlier discussion here on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Basically we have TOO many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the "owners of capital" to employ them all for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization to live in day to day. The owners of capital want more people born, not simply for "growing the future tax base", but for the true purpose of DECREASING overall wages for everyone. More people MEANS less jobs and pay per person, affecting even the educated and highly skilled. Its actually quite simple for the peons/peasants of the world to start having more say in how the world is run. Simply don't have children nor support those having children. The result will be soaring wages and diverse employment options expanding for all. The current policy of taxing those without kids is a subconscious way to influence the birth of more kids, by punishing those whom are abstaining from having kids in their own best FINANCIAL interests, whom are also not giving in to the desires for increased population coveted by both government and large corporations.

I have been making the argument, for a very long time, that the ever increasing "non-1%'er" population is, in fact, lowering the overall influence of those whom are not in the 1%.

How is this possible, you ask?

Because its easier to "pay less" or "nothing at all" to contracted or indentured "labor" when there is another willing laborer/slave waiting in the wings to do the work for less or nothing at all. Its actually quite simple, if those not in the 1% refused to get married or have babies from here on out & actively blocked any future immigration, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get "worked on" would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up.

This kind of "baby making with benefits" thinking on a grand scale is the problem. There are not enough paying jobs to go around as it is and the "baby makers" somehow think bringing another human onto the earth is a good idea. Their future, unborn, child is going to do nothing except drive down wages for everyone else who was already here. These people, quite simply put, need to rethink their purpose in life. Its not to make babies in a world without a job for them to earn a living from. People who think like this are doing nothing more than driving the rest of us deeper into slavery at the hands of the "owners of capital", whom use "extra living bodies" as an excuse to constantly drive down wages and increase the costs of goods due to increased demand or even sometimes lack of demand. People need to change their world view, RIGHT NOW, its not about making babies anymore! Save a job for a person already born and living, by getting a vasectomy and vilifying those who choose to make more human beings through biological reproduction!

Guess when the largest “recorded” wage increase happened in history for, non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?

I’ll tell you, it was after the black death pandemic in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people, so, in order for ANY work to get done they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare or, as some have been recommending lately, a guaranteed minimum wage or allowance that everyone gets, without having to provide labor to an employer first. I’m not going to go into any specific economic theory, but this above noted cohort of non-participants collecting a base amount of guaranteed welfare/allowance will likely keep wages stable for those whom are still working full-time. For example, if all people capable of working full-time, entered the job market simultaneously, wages would crash and to a certain extent have, as of 2014.

Contrary to popular, academic and authoritative opinions, history has already proved my above inference to be VERY effective against the 1%'ers quest to drive down wages. Hence, if those NOT in the 1% refused to get married or have babies from here on out & aggressively blocked any future immigration, both legal and illegal, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages for non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers, etc. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get "worked on" would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up, FOR EVERYBODY, even skilled workers. For us the peasants, "self induced labor shortages" is one of the few ways to get the "owners of capital" to pay more for services rendered. This includes the concept of the UNION, but Americans have already voted against their interests in that respect. All they really have left now to negotiate with, is making less babies and stopping both legal & illegal immigration.

Its not simply about "wealth redistribution" and taxing those without children more than those with children, its about overabundance of labor on the market and the ability of the 1% to artificially drive down wages of the 99%. When the Black Death came about and wiped out "excess labor", the 1%'ers of the day somehow found "extra money" to pay said labor, for services rendered. Which means it was always available and wages could have been higher previously, but instead the 1%, of the day, chose to play the game, "pit the desperate workers against each other".

The French Revolution and the Peasant's Revolt also function within my "scarce-labor of ALL types" theory, resulting in higher wages being paid to non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers. During the French Revolution, from 1789 to 1799, birth rates fell dramatically and the earlier he Peasants Revolt, of 1381, not surprisingly, had roots in the aftermath of the Black Death. In fact, the Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". The sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351". It was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Its simple, newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this.

a reply to: edward777

I'm not exactly the last of the mohicans here. There's going to be lots of slaves having kids in spite of my own position not to. But Jonestown? Wow, that's pretty severe to compare me to Jim Jones and kool aid drinking puppets just because I don't want to deliver more wage slaves into the hands of the nwo. So severe in fact, it makes me wonder what your angle is. What do you have invested in the game that you would draw such a comparison, and negatively associate people who don't want children, with something like Jonestown? Most revealing...

a reply to: edward777
Capitalism, which worships materialism, currently reigns supreme. Capitalism is the system that most closely mirrors the broad predation of nature. And by that I mean sub-human nature. In laissez-faire capitalism, altruism is a weakness, a flaw that is scorned by the likes of Ayn Rand and fellow subjectivists. Humanity claims superiority, but at this point we are still firmly rooted in the jungle. We have so far to go.

a reply to: edward777

Errrr.. don't want to burst your bubble, but I've never been taught, or even told not to have kids. The only reason I'm not is because I don't want my children growing up in such an Oligarchy and it's pretty much illegal to just "live off the land" these days unless you can come up with some BS papers saying a distant relative was a native to the land.

Forget all the political crap. Having children is in part what we were made for. What else is there to say?

originally posted by: 0bservant
a reply to: edward777

Errrr.. don't want to burst your bubble, but I've never been taught, or even told not to have kids. The only reason I'm not is because I don't want my children growing up in such an Oligarchy and it's pretty much illegal to just "live off the land" these days unless you can come up with some BS papers saying a distant relative was a native to the land.

Then you must have gone to a private religious school because every biology book I have seen in public schools has a section on "overpopulation."

There are foundations that lobby the entertainment industry to write pro-reduction messages in movies and TV shows. These are done subtly, like only showing older couples with one kid as the norm.

As for people asking why I make the comparison to Jonestown, the ultimate result is the same if you don't have kids. It is called extinction.

a reply to: edward777

There is no rationale behind your Jonestown comparison whatsoever [other than hostility]. You may have noticed that since the kool-aid festival, the population of the earth has carried on most nobly.

www.un.org...

The current world population of 7.2 billion is projected to increase by 1 billion over the next 12 years and reach 9.6 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations report launched today, which points out that growth will be mainly in developing countries, with more than half in Africa.