Prince Charles Openly Endorses New Draconian Population Study

Originally posted by Agarta
reply to post by citizen6511

 

Okay it's an option, and being voluntary it might even be acceptable but I do have one issue with it. Why is it you limited this program to Women? There are more women than men in todays society and it would be cheaper to offer it to Men instead of Women. This however is still not fair so it should be a choice, if available, to both sexes not one or the other. I will admit I made this choice over 2 years ago and it would have been nice to have had it done for free and got paid for it too.

with all the choices available to get pregnant, natural, medical etc. even if her mate is sterile, the option remains for the female.

if the political will was behind it, it would work and greatly reduce birth in poverty.

I think we are looking at this from the wrong end.

If we can consider all these other things, surely we can consider this.



Dr. Kevorkian's work could skim how much of the population off the top that doesn't even want to be here? People who are so sick they do not even want to still be alive? What is more humane, giving them the permission to go in peace while decreasing the population or forcing them to live in pain and sickness while using other inhumane methods to control a population? I am not good with numbers but I believe it would help first of all the people who are in so much pain and then trickle down to help not only with over population but with hospitals, families paying to keep them alive when they don't even want to be.... so and forth..... Is that unreasonable?

Paul and Anne Ehrlich Are they Related to Dr. Paul Ehrlich was born on March 14, 1854 at Strehlen, in Upper Silesia, Germany ? Any Information Please?

IF,,, they real what to limet the population.
then Why are they filling some countries UP with imagrants???

you would never see China taking in 500,000 each year!
Stupid...

reply to post by Agarta


Earth can comfortably support 30-50 Billion people. It's our system of hoarding to the top 0.01% which is the problem (I'm sick of the whole "99%" thing, 1%ers aren't the problem, its the multi-multi billionaires who are the problem. We can change our priorities so that everyone can live in abundance and happiness (not talking communism, I just mean not 99.99% of us effectively "kicking up" to the 0.01%. One Bill Gates is equal to 200,000 "1%ers."

Where does it say anything about Draconians? this confuses me.

Ok nvm, but seriously you believe explosivereports.com? I'm pretty sure that site is the same as the Nation inquire that sells in super markets.

Originally posted by dogstar23
One Bill Gates is equal to 200,000 "1%ers."

Isn't 200,000 a drop in the bucket..so let's say there are 500 Bill's in the world that would mean supporting 10 million with their funds...is that really going to fix world problems when you suggest 50 billion much less 7 billon?

Do you know that there are more humans than rats and mice put together? There is no quality of life for 80% of the population, so why not reduce it over time to something well below 5 billion and continue to advance into areas where people are not living yet. The oceans are drying up with fish as we consume them all. I don't think it is the Bill's of the world eating all that food....

reply to post by dogstar23

I don't know if anyone else has posted this. Apologies if so.

thinkprogress.org...

The world wastes from one-third to one-half of the four billion metric tons of food it produces each year, according to a report released last week by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Because any item of food also represents an entire chain of production, wasted food also translates into wasted fresh water, wasted energy, wasted cropland, and further contributions to global warming with no discernible counter-balancing benefit.

The message of the "oners" is very easily decoded if people take the trouble to do so.

"The allocation of resources currently accruing to us is unsustainable if the population increases. We do not have the ability to manage and control that many serfs. The solution is to cull the herd so that we can continue to manage it to our satisfaction. We need to sterilize them or kill them off somehow. The future of our class depends on it."

I found this quote by the man that Wrote the report that Prince Charles is endorsing and I find it rather disturbing

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

Source: www.peopleforwesternheritage.com... 9th one from the top.

reply to post by Agarta

Just posting off the top of my head here but if you research the origin of libraries in England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries you will find that there was widespread opposition to libraries and to educating the underclasses by the elite. It was thought that it would make it more difficult to control them and to maintain the social status quo that was so advantageous to the wealthy.

This attitude to human progress and enlightenment is a permanent characteristic of the elite. "Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Dumbed down, uneducated and in the factory." That's where they want to keep us.

Only pregnant is now a problem. Population increase plus technological decentralization will end the stranglehold the rich have on the rest of us. It's about time.

Originally posted by dogstar23
reply to post by Agarta

 

Earth can comfortably support 30-50 Billion people. ."

rats in a maze dogstar, rats in a maze.

Too many rats = crazy, deadly behaviour.

imo, your apparent wish or support to allow vo many humans is a sure fire way to bring about human extinction.

Not being an "elite" (heck, we don't even have a complete house) but I still believe that a dramatic reduction in human population would be a good thing for both those left and the planet as a whole. Bring on birth control, bring on population reduction. How? Well officer, THAT is the right question (stolen from I robot)

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by dogstar23
One Bill Gates is equal to 200,000 "1%ers."

Isn't 200,000 a drop in the bucket..so let's say there are 500 Bill's in the world that would mean supporting 10 million with their funds...is that really going to fix world problems when you suggest 50 billion much less 7 billon?

Do you know that there are more humans than rats and mice put together? There is no quality of life for 80% of the population, so why not reduce it over time to something well below 5 billion and continue to advance into areas where people are not living yet. The oceans are drying up with fish as we consume them all. I don't think it is the Bill's of the world eating all that food....

Yes, you are correct, but that is just a part of it. I believe too man resources are allocated to too few people. I get that some of that wealth drives other things. For example, for simplicity, let's say Henry Ford was still alive today and owned 100% of FoMoCo. It's not like he's just hoarding all of that wealth, he's using it to run and build a company, provide other jobs, etc. I get that part, but what about the massive wealth accumulation which is simply just re-invested in re-investments, derivatives, options amd put-options, not really building anything? Or the vast percentage of worldwide effort and wealth dumped into war machines? We have the means and the technology to sustainably, relatively-cleanly feed that 30-50 billion. And not just to survive, but to thrive.

We *could* do this, but we're not going to. It just isn't conducive to those in power maintaining their gap between themselves and the 99.99%ers. And so 7 billion struggle, some moreso than others, while meantime the few (and I'm probably overstating it by putting them at 0.01% of the population, maybe there's another decimal or two - whatever) plot how best to cull our numbers, so that the status quo can be maintained. If that means compressing us to 1 billion, 500 million, whatever the number may be, then that is what they will strive for.

We can have the clean, green planet, and we can eliminate hunger, and we can do it all while the population increases. We cannot, however, do that, and maintain things as they are for the precious Few.

Originally posted by dogstar23

We can have the clean, green planet, and we can eliminate hunger, and we can do it all while the population increases. We cannot, however, do that, and maintain things as they are for the precious Few.

We can not eat money, stocks or bonds.... how do we feed everyone...

Worldwide figures, around 90 billion marine animals including 1 billion frogs (125 million metric tons), 42 billion chickens, 2.3 billion ducks, 1.3 billion pigs, 900 million rabbits, 665 million turkeys, 525 million geese, 475 million sheep, 350 million goats, 290 million cows, 65 million guinea pigs, 55 million pigeons, 22 million buffalo, 15 million dogs, 9 million camels/donkeys/horses, 3 million cats, etc.

We are in deep #.... This is what we kill right now...do you really think we can do more or even keep these numbers up? Population will reset with mass starvation and disease, happens all the time, and our time is coming whether the top 1% does anything or not.

If the Dark Overlords have found habitable planets "for realzies" then, I volunteer to take my number in the count off the Earth like....yesterday. Even if they are like Klingons, I'd much rather live on a place like Qo'nos than Earth.

To Them:
We see you people. I use people loosely. We know you don't care, but not everyone is eating the cake and drinking the kool-aid.

reply to post by ipsedixit

The message of the "oners" is very easily decoded if people take the trouble to do so.

And yet you got it completely backwards. Population continues to increase and there are no serious policies to reverse this.

The "oners" are not afraid of big populations, they encourage them. Because great population growth means trouble with distribution and infrastructure, which leads to more poverty. And it is easy to control the poor.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Everybody here knows England is screwed . Look at your own country from where we all ran to get away from . If it were so great why would we have left . America is not crowded or as violent as your country.

Goes to show what you actually know about colonisation (especially that of the US). Most English descended Americans left for religious reasons during the 16th and 17th centuries. Bog all to do with England being crappy, we just didn't want you wierdo's knocking about and you didn't like us either as we were too much fun...

And of course America isn't as crowded - yet! You haven't filled up all the land you stole of the natives or Mexico, have you?

Oh, btw, it's the UK - not "England". Once more, an idiot Yank who wouldn't know an Atlas if it smacked them in the face.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Why don't you and all of your wisdom deal with your own problems , and they are many.

Compared to most places on the planet, it isn't that bad. I really have no idea what problem you have with the UK.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
First off your silly pride and your silly ritual about a Queen who actually does nothing along with prince Charles who has never turned a productive days work and lives off the backs of the poor .

Show's what you know. Aside from the obvious tourist benefits of the Queen, she performs a vital function within our Constitutional Monarchy. Ironic that, she is constitutionally important to us, but you feel quite at ease taking shots, but god-forbid anyone dare question the Great and Wonderful US Constitution!!

As for Charles, he doesn't get any state money. His income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is a collection of farms and property. They do actually have a nice line of organic products, as it happens. Charles has actually been quite productive too, especially in terms of conservation activities, certainly more so than many people I know.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Thats something you can work on .

Get off your high horse.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Or those thieving bankers who literally stole your country after Waterloo .

Funny that, if they did steal it then they did a good job looking after it, seeing as we reached our pinnacle once we got those French out the way, incidentally it is because of them harrying us in the 18th century you guys managed to get your own "freedom". If it wasn't for the French, you'd be like Canada

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Or you can work on your Muslim problems and their murderous tendencies .

What Muslim problems? I think your mask just slipped and you've just given away that fact your not trying to have a debate, you're simply a bigoted, small minded troll.

reply to post by stumason


If you like living in England fine! Live there and let America take care of it's own business. You can keep your Queen ,princes , dutches and Piers Morgan . At 31 percent Muslim you have a real problem with Muslims . They are going to take over soon by numbers . The people who came over here left the misery of England for a free life where they could be more than a commoner . England has invaded more places ,killed more people off their land , and oppressed more people than any other country .America is in no need of input from England .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
If you like living in England fine! Live there and let America take care of it's own business.

Yep, I am quite happy here and also quite puzzled by the last comment. Surely, this is a thread about a UK science report being "endorsed" by a UK prince. Might I ask then, what the hell are you doing commenting on this thread?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
You can keep your Queen ,princes , dutches and Piers Morgan

You can keep Piers, we don't want him back. The guy is a plank. But yes, we'll keep the Queen thank you very much, but I doubt you are even aware of the role the monarchy plays or how our country works.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
At 31 percent Muslim you have a real problem with Muslims

31%? HAHAHAHA, try 4% mate. Clearly you have issues when it comes to simple, verifiable facts.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
. They are going to take over soon by numbers .

Nope, they are not. You have a far higher percentage of Mexicans to worry about, so trot on.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
The people who came over here left the misery of England for a free life where they could be more than a commoner .

That's not really what happened though, is it? Like I said, most English immigration took place in the 16th and 17th centuries when there was quite a bit of religious strife between Catholics and Protestants. It had nothing to do with quality of life, but more to do with Freedom of religion. It is quite ironic how that has played out, isn't it? The US being now a whopping great bible bashing freak, producing bigots like yourself while the UK has grown up beyond the need to believe in fluffy-bearded, sky men....

Originally posted by SimonPeter
England has invaded more places ,killed more people off their land , and oppressed more people than any other country .America is in no need of input from England .

Now you're just making stuff up. England did no such thing. The last country England invaded was Ireland in 1689 when Cromwell invaded. Prior to that, it was pretty much a constant three way between England, France and Scotland. England has actually invaded less countries than most, but your blind bigotry prevents you from dealing with that simple fact.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

The message of the "oners" is very easily decoded if people take the trouble to do so.

And yet you got it completely backwards. Population continues to increase and there are no serious policies to reverse this.

China's one child policy is serious, although they are re-thinking it. What other serious policy would be possible? Perhaps a one child policy in South America or India?

The "oners" are not afraid of big populations, they encourage them.

Could you give me a source on this. We have a large population, so being in favor of it or against it is irrelevant. Are you saying that some "oners" are recommending an increase of population?

Because great population growth means trouble with distribution and infrastructure, which leads to more poverty. And it is easy to control the poor.

I don't think so. In the French Revolution, trouble with food distribution became an uncontrollable situation for the French government.

I think that population increase, coupled with diffusion of technological advances, like the internet, will make it increasingly difficult for the elite to control the underclasses, no matter what else happens. I think our survival depends on increased population and increased decentralization of control. I believe the elite opposes both for essentially selfish reasons.

reply to post by stumason


I am quoting International News about the Muslims trying to get Sharia Law instituted . The report said upwards to 31% and the growing problem . I guess you forgot the American Revolution where England came to give us a lesson . Then all of those other conquest . Australia nor New Guinea was not part of England nor was Singapore , the Falklands or the British West Indies etc.
I'm glad you like Britain , good for you but we have been getting so much criticism from England and Canada who have some real problems of their own trying to invoke their opinions and rules on us . We don't want to be like you people . We don't have your problems we don't want your help tearing down our Constitution either .
Prince Charles is just parroting the NWO objective of population control . That plan will be implimented against the will of the majority of people . A simple cessation of reproduction among us commoners would not be enough according to the ilk that wants to run the world . They want a 80 to 90% reduction in population and they don't want to wait 100 years for that to happen . It could be you and your family that is going to be affected . How would you like that . Read < Euginics Quotes> . Of course the Elite would not be included in the reduction .
Maybe you haven't read about Rockefeller , Prince Phillip, Kissinger , and some of your bunch , now Charles .