Positions Of Power, and Population Reduction. How Many Must Go, and How They Plan To "Educate" Us.

I am putting this in "general conspiracies" but this is more or less a "worldwide conspiracy" that has to be read, and understood, and finally realized and faced.

We have heard of lots of "society" groups, but this is the first time Ive looked into the "Royal Society". Most researchers can skim through a lot of the words like, "societal changes, stabilization, environmental impact", and other pretty words, and see through the thin line of BS, that is really seeping through.

We have hundreds of different things to look into as far as the planet is concerned, false flags, terrorism (depending on who you think are the actual terrorist), elections, medical conspiracies, etc,. What we sometimes over look are the implications and secret planning of depopulation of humans on this planet.

Whether you believe it or not , IMHO is irrelevant, because all of the clues are all around us.

One of the largest so-called concerns of over population is that "we" are in such large numbers that we are actually depleting the planet. This is in fact.... FALSE!!

The depletion is due to corporate greed, when I use a piece of paper, I do not cut down a tree. Do you?

How are we eating everything, when almost everything we eat is artificial? Look through all the threads talking about GMO's, fluoride, metals, and chemicals that are in our food. Were lucky if we get at least one "nutritional" food in our system each day. Between that and all those starving, and going hungry, even in the most established countries, we are still far from depleting the planet!

Now to the Royal Society, their claims of "helping" the planet, and their plan to do so.

A little history on the Royal Society, its members, their new (yet old) recommendations to "help" us out!
*** BTW, I recommended when reading to read through the lines for a better understanding



Which roughly translates "Take Nobody's Word For it"

The origins of the Royal Society lie in an 'invisible college' of natural philosophers who began meeting in the mid-1640s to discuss the new philosophy of promoting knowledge of the natural world through observation and experiment, which we now call science.

Its official foundation date is 28 November 1660, when a group of 12 met at Gresham College after a lecture by Christopher Wren, then the Gresham Professor of Astronomy, and decided to found 'a Colledge for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematicall Experimentall Learning'. This group included Wren himself, Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, Sir Robert Moray, and William, Viscount Brouncker.
The Society was to meet weekly to witness experiments and discuss what we would now call scientific topics. The first Curator of Experiments was Robert Hooke. It was Moray who first told the King, Charles II, of this venture and secured his approval and encouragement. At first apparently nameless, the name The Royal Society first appears in print in 1661, and in the second Royal Charter of 1663 the Society is referred to as 'The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge'.

royalsociety.org...

Here is their most recent report.
People and The Planet April 2012.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Also those that are part of this society are from all over the world.
Here are just a few, so we all understand that this is not a "one" country problem.

Sir Patrick Bateson FRS Emeritus Professor of Ethology, University of Cambridge
Professor Cai Fang Director of the Institute of Population and Labor Economics,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Professor Suzana Cavenaghi Council member and ex-President of the Latin America
Population Association, Brazil
Professor Parfait M Eloundou-Enyegue Associate Professor Department of Development Sociology at Cornell
University, and Associate Director of Cornell Population Program
Professor Roger Short FRS Honorary Professorial Fellow in Reproductive Biology,
University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr Eliya Zulu Executive Director, African Institute for Development Policy and
Past President, Union for African Population Studies

According to the Royal Society,

“the world’s human population, coupled with unprecedented levels of consumption present profound challenges to human health and well being, and the natural environment.”

Most of these things will be mentioned at the next summit in June of 2012.

The UN will unveil its plans for the new “ green economy ” at the conference on “Sustainable Development” (UN CSD or Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro this year. The UN plans to reshape global society, the world’s economy and give itself new encompassing powers that will march the international body toward one world governance.
The UN will disburse a global carbon tax , redistribute the world’s wealth and install programs that will place all issues concerning humanity, poverty, the securitization of resources and education under its control and command.

They want to oversee all aspects of human activity as part of their social re-engineering.

The UN published a paper entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective” where they outline their agenda. More than 35 UN agencies and international institutions were employed to create this document. They functioned under the title, the UN “Environmental Management Group” (UNEMG).

This conference spawned the infamous Agenda 21 .
The document by UNEMG discusses “transitioning to a green economy” that demands a “shift in the way we think and act”. They want to use education, information and “awareness” to “change individual and collective behavior”. They also want to take a concerted look at the “lifestyles in developed countries” to alter “consumption and production patterns”.

occupycorporatism.com...

Jules Pretty of the Royal Society working group is proposing,

“When we slow down population growth we empower women and provide more money for least developed countries to invest in education. The majority of women want fewer children.”

I was curious about the above, and found what their plans were concerning the "educating" of women.

Women bear the main physical burden of
reproduction: pregnancy, breastfeeding and
childcare. They also bear the main responsibility
for contraception as most methods are designed
for their use. Men, it may be argued, reap the
benefits of children without incurring an equal
share of the cost. It follows that women may be
more favourable to the idea of small families and
family planning than their partners but unable
to express their inclinations in male-dominated
systems. Such views received international
endorsement in the Program of Action resulting
from the UN conference on population in 1994.
Paragraph 4.1 states that “improving the status of
women is essential for the long-term success of
population programs”.

This quote and more can be found on page 33 of People and The Planet.

It seems that have found there target audience. This should both anger men and women alike.

More continued below.........

Reduce UK Population by Half: Leading Government Green Advisor

Jonathon Porritt told the London Times this week that he will tell the annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, that in order to reduce "pressure" on the world’s ecosystems, Britain must halve its population to 30 million inhabitants.

"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."

As a longstanding member of the Green party, and a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, Porritt has become one of the most public faces in the radical environmentalist movement. The son of Lord Porritt, he is one of Britain’s leading advisors to Parliament as well as an advisor to the Prince of Wales.

www.lifesitenews.com...

What is "Optimum Population Trust"? Now known as the "Population Matters".
Here is there site, and the nice little calculator that they have on the side to show how many people are on this planet, and gaining by the second.
www.populationmatters.org...

Optimum Population Trust: seeing what they want to see

The Optimum Population Trust, for those of you who haven't yet come across them, are an odd bunch. Bluntly, they believe the best way to save the planet is to get rid of as many human beings as possible.

On the plus side, at least they are being more honest than most greens in their open contempt for human beings. The reality of many in the environmentalist movement is at core a deep anti-humanism, an arrogant dislike for people who are somehow too stupid to see the problem with their pursuit of a happy life and a healthy family.

On the down side, the OPT's aims are actually pretty worrying - verging on sinister, even. Buried in their website is a detailed spreadsheet [Excel link] laying out their ideal "sustainable" populations for each country. And those "ideal" populations are a little worrying, if you try to imagine the reality of them.

For example, the UK should shrink to 29 million people, from the 60 million we currently have. We are of course a small island, but ask yourself which half of your friends you would rather did not exist?

And we get things comparatively easy in the OPT's dystopian vision of the future.

Only one in six of the current Algerian population should really be allowed. Bosnians are unlikely to be overjoyed that 3 million of their 4 million people are, in the OPT's eyes, an inconvenience. Rwanda should apparently go from 7 million people to only 2 million.

What the OPT seem to forget is that these aren't just statistics. They aren't just "emitters", as their website terms them. They are real human beings, who live, love and laugh. It is peculiar that Sir David Attenborough, the Patron of the Trust, can show so much compassion for animals but is apparently happy to back such a dispassionate dismissal of the value of our fellow humans.

Yesterday, the OPT released the results of a Yougov opinion poll [Excel link] which they trumpeted as showing public support for their aims. "Public want smaller UK population", announces their website. However, when you actually read the tables for the polling results, it turns out that the public are bothered about far more real world, centre right issues than greenie pipe dreams.

conservativehome.blogs.com...

Jonathon Porritt, member of the Royal Society and former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission has stated on record that the British population must be reduced from 60 million to 30 million to remain a sustainable society.

Professor Paul Ehrlich, who co-authored Ecoscience with Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren, was quoted in the Guardian as supporting a drastic population reduction before the population rises to 9 billion in 2050.

Ehrlich said:

How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness.


If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion.


So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage... The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster.


Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Peace, NRE.

I do not see what is wrong with a population decrease. If a law was made for a family to have only ONE child, then the population would decrease by 50% every generation. Example: 100 to 50 to 25. I am sure that this way of doing things will help mother earth to regenerate and clean up the planet. To many people do not care and do wasteful things.
How many of you people out there recycle? I bet very few of you do and don't forget about wasteful habbits and all you hoarders out there. Let us also consider all the dumping of waste and pollutants on earth to consider which man does all the time. Our ocean is being used as a dumping ground and nobody cares just as long as what you cannot see will not hurt you attitude. The ocean is a big part of producing oxegen. Who wants to live on a vast planet of junk and waste with polluted air to breath. Look around, the problem is getting worse with the population increase. Man is not supposed to be a cancer on the planet. Lets clean up our act. And care.

reply to post by cloaked4u


In my opinion the problem isn't "we", but those that have the money, and supply the people with wasteful products, and let us not forget those in office that allow such wasteful products to be made, and sold.

Now that they found a way for us to walk around and hold ourselves responsible for corporate greed, and wastefulness, now they want us to believe that we have to stop being a drain on the planet.

Last time I checked I didn't put my trash here, that is not my truck, and I dont remember driving that far out of town to dump anything... have you?



Peace, NRE.

Decided to give this a bump. Of course this isn't MSM news, but news nonetheless, that should be shared, reviewed, and concerned with.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Who makes a garbage dump next to a body of water? See what i mean, idiotic. People do not consider the ramafications of what their actions do to the earth.

reply to post by cloaked4u


Corporations make them, government allows them, stores stock them, and people consume them.

Peace, NRE.

Here is a nice little list, are they also required to follow the rules of depopulation?
Toxic 100: Meet the Country's Worst Air Polluters
www.good.is...

Here are the worst 10.
The 10 worst offenders?

Bayer Group
ExxonMobil
Sunoco
E.I. du Pont de Nemours
ArcelorMittal
Steel Dynamics Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM)
Ford Motor Co.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Koch Industries
You can click on any of the companies to see summaries of their pollution impacts and data on all of their individual facilities.
www.good.is...

All Im saying is that there is supposed to be accountability, but no where in any discussion of depopulation etc,. is there anything about those that are the worst offenders.

They need alot more separate containers. One for metals,(copper,brass,alluminum,steel ect.)one for bio waste,(diapers,food,cat litter,ect. one for plastics only(some cloths are made of plastic fibers) and one for misc. trash like electronics, old shoes, ect. This would greatly reduce garbage dumps. The bio's would go back to the earth, the metals and plastics would be recycled, and the rest of the junk will either rust/rot and go back into the earth. Greatly reducing the amount of trash around the earth due to recycling.

Alot of people these days are so lazy, useless, no good, cancer apon the face of earth when it comes to caring about the environment. Everyone, including buisnesses are wasteful entities that pollute and pollute the planet into a garbage hole for future generations to come. I have been all over the world and have visited many apon many a cities. Each time i'm in an airplane i can tell when we enter city limits without looking out the window. The air smell changes. When you in one place for a long period of time your nose gets numb to the smell it smells every day and your brain blocks out that smell and you think everything is fine. NO it is not. Those who travel know exactly what i am talking about. We need to curb our population on this planet and that is a fact.

reply to post by cloaked4u


I am not disputing that this is a problem, I am trying to get to the root, and the root is NOT man, as individuals, but man as a group... called "corporations".

This is what ultimately will destroy the planet. The only way I could see humans as the most wasteful, is if we are personally walking around and littering the streets, or making PVC at home, and then going to the beach to dump it. I have yet to meet a person who owned a barge, and dumped trash into the Ocean straight from his garbage bin.

This is NOT the case.

Peace, NRE.