Topic: Population Control and Globalism (Read 2421 times)

I think it would be possible that through global issues that we are facing, we can be united as one to fight it. But the hard thing to do is to let people do it, we should admit that people around the world lack of initiative to do it.
I think it just looked like that they are into controlling people but I think they only just want to control population to control other problems related to it.

the main controllers are indeed the national banking cartels globally, if controll comes from somewhere its from them,

they controll, surpress, center the economy on themselves, cause economic insecurity, limit creativity.

population growth has a lot of advantages if there is a sufficiently good enterpreneuership to harness benefits from it.

regards

Population control and globalism are two different words but inseparable.  Obviously, globalization has both positive and negative effects on the world population control. Generally, migration of people from one country to another have seen wide spread of different kinds of sicknesses such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, EBOLA, etc. and also the spread of family planning, public health and medical technology. Through the global spread of modern health and family planning technology there are noticeable improvements in the area of life expectancy and reduction of fertility. However, support from international donors has aid in reducing the gap between life expectancy and fertility reduction.

thanks, you are right, it´s proof that goes with two o.

I´m a great advocate of curiosity, asking questions and seeking evidences when curiosity strikes, but I have to wonder if these sort of questions are asked in that curious spirit or if they are rhetorical and pointed. I´m not making an accusation here Boss (even though it is sort of rhetorical).  It´s a common habit of thinking, to ask questions with a desired answer in mind. They are commonly prefaced by: ¨What if...¨, followed by [my particular (preferred) conclusion]. the ¨What if...¨ type question, is a prime candidate for making a statement in the form of a question and leaving others to contend with falsifications. When I read this sort of question  I hear myself asking: Is this humble curiosity, ambivalence or conviction? 

We need to learn how to get past armchair speculation and hoping others will figure everything out for us. Conspiracy theories are built up, by tying numerous whimsical speculations together with popular cultural dogma and gluing them with a little bit of circumstantial evidence (like establishing a motive). Itś all about what you can get away with claiming, rather what there is good evidence for. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. I have a different question: What evidence do we have for these things? Perhaps we could ask that, of these questions you have raised Boss. Better yet; What evidence do we wish to consider, and what is the most parsimonious way to explain it? Not being factious you know, but if this eradication policy were half true, then there´s some serious shit about to hit the fan, which we will all have to deal with.  The best approach IMHO is a rational one. That entails starting from what we know (within reason) and preceding to investigate what we don´t know (with reason). Just my 0.002 BTC worth.

The words of true wisdom!
I back this up, it really works.

"Prove" has one "o". Same goes for lose, just in case. Sorry - just a pet peeve. Ordinarily, I would've let it go, but you seem to be using the word often.

lol no.  I told you I am Irish and that I grew up during the Troubles.  It would be strange if I didn't have some views on who is and is not a terrorist and on how terrorists morph into statesmen or into freedom fighters if they strike a good deal for themselves.

Right now, I would put money on the terrorists in Afghanistan forming the government of the country and being statesmen within 10 years.

 ... just to proove me wrong.

You define terrorism as being violence against a state entity.  But the example I showed, the Shankill Butchers, was part of a terrorist movement that proclaimed loyalty to the state and of course never acted against the state.

btw the history of terrorism in ireland goes back at least to 7th century counted in christian years of which the guys in those days were only partially aware of.

 ... pardon?
I didn´t get to what you disagree, to the indirect proof or to its assumption?

I disagree.  The Shankill Butchers never targeted once a state entity yet they were an almost textbook example of terrorism. 

I suggest (just to proove myself wrong): Terrorism is politically motivated violence against a state entity to achieve a change.
... fits damned well to Syria, Tunesia, Egypt, ...
If the term terrorism is meant to make sense you first have to aggree on a basic assumption called: human rights
Neither population control nor globalism aggrees on that.  So terrorism is a meaningless term in a logic of population control or globalism.
If this term is meaningless you can proove nothing with it. Now if somebody is trying to support one of population control or globalism by arguing with terrorism he is selfcontradicting his approach.

Fair point about the Isrealis.  Allow me to point out that for the first 50 years of its existence, my country Ireland's leaders were all men who had blood on their hands and who had served time for what we now call terrorism.  Half of the present cabinet in Northern Ireland are in the same position. I said the Israelis were "ex-terrorists" and our Irish leaders can likewise be called ex-terrorists.

Note that I don't say any of them ever expressed regret.  Once they win, they stop being terrorist and are freedom fighters.

So what is terrorism?  There doesn't seem to be an agreed definition but I would use "Terrorism is political violence by a non-state entity."

All I know is that according to my experience, shifting my attitude has brought success without even really trying.  I'm a lot like you, "boss," in the sense that I spent the vast majority of high school and my undergrad college years despising authority, loathing the hoops I was seemingly forced to jump through by spending 18+ years in an educational bureaucracy so I could actually get my foot in the door somewhere, watching the news and media with increasing distaste for what I thought was the obvious downfall of societal values and thinking that everyone was ignorant to the things that would make the world a better place.  Rap music?  Fuck rappers, fuck the Kardashians, fuck Jersey Shore, fuck Enron, fuck Bush, and fuck you if you don't see that I'm a critical thinker and that my passion for answering life's most important questions makes me more wise, sophisticated, and just than you will ever be.  Take off the goggles dude, you're all fucking blind.

But, when I started to shift my attitude to see the good in all I had considered bad, to see the just in the unjust, to take sole and utter responsibility for my well-being, and, most importantly, to recognize the ultimate and pervasive freedom of my own mind by understanding the power of interpretation, amazing things started to happen.  I define reality, and through defining it I literally construct it.  I can be the richest man or the poorest man, but the choice is mine and mine alone to decide which I will be.  

There is no "out there" independent of what's "in here."  Projection is not only a defense mechanism, it's a truism, and I realized that the only reason I saw authority as trying to manipulate and control everything is because it was the same approach I was taking.  I was trying to control and manipulate by preaching my ideals to anyone I could find, especially late at night when I was left alone to my thoughts and they were bursting to get out.  How could they not agree with me?  How could they not see my ideas are special?  How could they not understand that the depth of my thoughts was an obvious correlation to my unwavering desire to make the world a better place?

As it turns out, I had simply invested too much of myself -- my emotions, my ego, my values, etc. -- in these ideas, and by preaching them I was simply being selfish.  I wanted to change the world in a way that my ego wanted, and I wanted to make the world just according to what my ego considered just.  I was the person I was criticizing.  I was a CEO, Bush, Enron, a rap star, a Kardashian, and a Jersey Shore nut all wrapped into one, and I didn't like myself then.  It took me a long time to figure out why.  In fact, I'm still figuring it out.  I advise you to do the same.

Weird if I would dare to try such  ... huhm ... assertion, "the people in higher places" could drag me to court and get me finally convicted.
 ... so let me put it like that: Do you blame Winston Churchill for getting them busy elsewhere?
The Afghan economy is prospering on opium plantation, well protected by Nato freedom fighters. Go there to proove me wrong. You will fail, provided you know how poppy looks like.

So now explain to me what terrorism is.

Poverty is not a choice or a lifestyle for the majority of poor people.  Some people do drink or drugs and they might be considered to have made a lifestyle choice.  But some are born disabled or suffer expensive debilitating illnesses or a raft of other bad luck things that do make you poor but do not mean you chose it.

I live next to several doctors. The ones I talk to daily are where they are because they simply have common sense: they save and live within their means. They don't waste their funds on consumerist crap like today's "middle-class" does. You'll notice it's the middle-to-poor people that buy all the luxury-branded crap.

We both have different ideas because I don't believe in the idea of "rich" and "poor". I just see people with different choices and lifestyles.

Rich doctors are generally that way as a result of marrying rich people or inheriting it.  I think you and I have very different ideas about what "rich" means.