• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

The Super-Capitalists’ Depopulation Agenda

Kayaker

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
1,105
I hate to say it but there are too many people and its going to get worse if something isn't done. People weren't meant to live in top of one another. We need space to be happy and thrive. The more people there are only the elite will be able to live happy. Unless everyone gets careers as garbage men or something like that there isn't anything for these billions to do except live on Gov handouts in Gov housing. Its a bleak future if something doesn't change
This planet is fertile enough to hold many billions of people. The mainstream narrative pushes the idea of scarcity. Much land unsuitable for cultivation in a raw state can be altered with new greenhouse technology to grow more than enough food to feed everyone currently on the planet multiple times over. But you won't hear about this on the MSM. The problem with this is that the wealthy are holding the resources that would allow us to eliminate starvation worldwide.
 

Donttreadonme

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2021
Messages
179
This planet is fertile enough to hold many billions of people. The mainstream narrative pushes the idea of scarcity. Much land unsuitable for cultivation in a raw state can be altered with new greenhouse technology to grow more than enough food to feed everyone currently on the planet multiple times over. But you won't hear about this on the MSM. The problem with this is that the wealthy are holding the resources that would allow us to eliminate starvation worldwide.
I am talking about resources AND.... A very important AND physical space. I dont want there to be so many people that all the population areas are like New York or Tokyo. I remember when there were 3 billion people on the plant and I know what the planet is today from doubling that value, and the world is a worse off place for it with more pollution, more garbage, and less natural land. If you draw a trend line, it does not end well for people who don't want to live stacked upon one another and it does not end well for the natural world and having a world beautiful enough to live in. If you prefer New York or Tokyo or Toronto to mountains and forrests then yeah you need billions more people. If you prefer mountains and hills and forrests then there are too many people and its getting much worse by the day.

I would gladly go back to 3 billion people.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
3,805
Location
USA
Re: the wall going up around the White House :

January 13, 2022 7:31 am


Per Ruben from Citizen Free Press:
False Flags for Dummies
STEP ONE: WH and Congress tipped that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Biden jab mandates.
STEP TWO: Construct wall out of feigned concerns.
STEP THREE: Fill the streets of D.C. with alphabet agents pretending to riot.
STEP FOUR: Declare Martial Law nationwide.
STEP FIVE: Suspend Habeus Corpus.
STEP SIX: Entrench the Deep State permanently.
 

Peatful

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
1,538
Re: the wall going up around the White House :

January 13, 2022 7:31 am


Per Ruben from Citizen Free Press:
False Flags for Dummies
STEP ONE: WH and Congress tipped that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Biden jab mandates.
STEP TWO: Construct wall out of feigned concerns.
STEP THREE: Fill the streets of D.C. with alphabet agents pretending to riot.
STEP FOUR: Declare Martial Law nationwide.
STEP FIVE: Suspend Habeus Corpus.
STEP SIX: Entrench the Deep State permanently.
Thx for this.

Sounds about right...
 

Kayaker

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
1,105
I am talking about resources AND.... A very important AND physical space. I dont want there to be so many people that all the population areas are like New York or Tokyo. I remember when there were 3 billion people on the plant and I know what the planet is today from doubling that value, and the world is a worse off place for it with more pollution, more garbage, and less natural land. If you draw a trend line, it does not end well for people who don't want to live stacked upon one another and it does not end well for the natural world and having a world beautiful enough to live in. If you prefer New York or Tokyo or Toronto to mountains and forrests then yeah you need billions more people. If you prefer mountains and hills and forrests then there are too many people and its getting much worse by the day.

I would gladly go back to 3 billion people.
You're confusing overpopulation with industrialization. There are many places with low population-density left. People who want to live in cities live in cities. I understand the sentiment that the population of where you live may be growing, but you can always go live where there are less people.

Cities are problematic places due to their high population-density, so then people vote for the party that increases taxes to solve these problems. Unfortunately, then people vote that way on a state-scale and national-scale, despite there being lots of rural areas in almost all states except some of the tiny NE states. Cities receive most of the benefit, so more people move to the cities. Under a far-left-wing government, few people would live outside of cities. The international planners and their environmentalist groups obviously want to force people to live in tightly-controlled smart cities.


The way to fight them is to promote decentralization and independence. Traditionally, you had enough land as you were willing to fight to defend. Even if enough people died that only 3 billion survived, the good 'ol days are gone. The gap between the rich and the poor is wider than ever before. Is it really freedom if you have to pay corrupt entities money to live on your own land?

Instead of wishing for the death of the masses who feed the monopolies, change them and take advantage of the power in numbers so you may yet live to be a sovereign citizen defending your own land, as it should be.
 

Donttreadonme

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2021
Messages
179
I just think there are too many people in the world and it's ruining the natural lands and offers no benefit to any species, including humans, on this planet. For example, try finding a few miles of undeveloped beach in Florida that isn't a wildlife refuge. The world was a much cleaner and nicer place about 3 billion people ago. 15 years ago a 40 mile commute to work would take me about 45 minutes. Today it's 90 minutes because of all the new people. I quit and now wont commute more than 10 miles at maximum.

Today I have to wait in line for an hour to pick up my kid from school because of all the people.... When I went to school, my ride would be waiting 50 feet from the door.... line? What line?

There was a study done on animals and animals live happier and longer lives when they are given space to live as opposed to animals that are crammed together in tighter living spaces. The ones crammed together eventually attack each other for no provocation. Kind of like what you see in New York and LA. There is so little space left that new houses today that cost $650k are built not even spaced 8ft apart from one another and what backyard! There are no backyards. I had to buy an older house in order for my family to have a traditional life where they don't have to hear the people next sneeze and fart because they live so close to each other.

Eventually the plan is to stop building houses for the masses and everyone buying something new will be moving into a highrise in the suburbs.

Whether you like it or not, its going to become apparent there are just too many people. The planet isn't getting bigger.

Something will need to be done. The question is what.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
3,805
Location
USA
You're confusing overpopulation with industrialization. There are many places with low population-density left. People who want to live in cities live in cities. I understand the sentiment that the population of where you live may be growing, but you can always go live where there are less people.

Cities are problematic places due to their high population-density, so then people vote for the party that increases taxes to solve these problems. Unfortunately, then people vote that way on a state-scale and national-scale, despite there being lots of rural areas in almost all states except some of the tiny NE states. Cities receive most of the benefit, so more people move to the cities. Under a far-left-wing government, few people would live outside of cities. The international planners and their environmentalist groups obviously want to force people to live in tightly-controlled smart cities.


The way to fight them is to promote decentralization and independence. Traditionally, you had enough land as you were willing to fight to defend. Even if enough people died that only 3 billion survived, the good 'ol days are gone. The gap between the rich and the poor is wider than ever before. Is it really freedom if you have to pay corrupt entities money to live on your own land?

Instead of wishing for the death of the masses who feed the monopolies, change them and take advantage of the power in numbers so you may yet live to be a sovereign citizen defending your own land, as it should be.
Yes, once you've flown over the US or Canada, Mexico or whatever a few times, you do see all the space without people in it. Driving across countries, same conclusion. Living in a city you're aware of crowding and pollution but not the open spaces.

I remember expressing my concern about pollution etc to a therapist once. He replied that the best thing I could do for the environment is kill myself. He was showing me the absurdity of my thinking.

So, if someone is so worried about overpopulation, rather than thinking about how to kill off masses of other people, consider yourself and your family/loved ones as the problem. That's enlightening. But to people with evil intentions, maybe not. The problem is the "others". Oh, how to deal with the terrible problem of "the others".
 

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
723
I just think there are too many people in the world and it's ruining the natural lands and offers no benefit to any species, including humans, on this planet. For example, try finding a few miles of undeveloped beach in Florida that isn't a wildlife refuge. The world was a much cleaner and nicer place about 3 billion people ago. 15 years ago a 40 mile commute to work would take me about 45 minutes. Today it's 90 minutes because of all the new people. I quit and now wont commute more than 10 miles at maximum.

Today I have to wait in line for an hour to pick up my kid from school because of all the people.... When I went to school, my ride would be waiting 50 feet from the door.... line? What line?

There was a study done on animals and animals live happier and longer lives when they are given space to live as opposed to animals that are crammed together in tighter living spaces. The ones crammed together eventually attack each other for no provocation. Kind of like what you see in New York and LA. There is so little space left that new houses today that cost $650k are built not even spaced 8ft apart from one another and what backyard! There are no backyards. I had to buy an older house in order for my family to have a traditional life where they don't have to hear the people next sneeze and fart because they live so close to each other.

Eventually the plan is to stop building houses for the masses and everyone buying something new will be moving into a highrise in the suburbs.

Whether you like it or not, its going to become apparent there are just too many people. The planet isn't getting bigger.

Something will need to be done. The question is what.
I agree the world has limited carrying capacity, and I too long for the days when you could drive through Yellowstone Park, say, and not encounter bumper to bumper traffic. However, the main threat at the moment is too much consumption and consequent pollution and resource depletion, not overpopulation itself. Of course, too much consumption could be reduced by reducing the population, but there are other ways. The fact that the world's debt-based fiat financial system requires ever-increasing consumption to avoid collapse suggests one alternative. Check out this series for an eye-opener:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA


Apparently, population growth itself is already leveling off or falling in the so-called first world countries. As RFKJr has pointed out, massive growth occurs in areas where large families are needed to support the parents, and where women are subjugated. The rub is the world cannot afford to secure their lives via a first-world consumption based model for obvious reasons. A truly sustainable economic system seems to me the most likely answer.
 

Donttreadonme

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2021
Messages
179
I agree the world has limited carrying capacity, and I too long for the days when you could drive through Yellowstone Park, say, and not encounter bumper to bumper traffic. However, the main threat at the moment is too much consumption and consequent pollution and resource depletion, not overpopulation itself. Of course, too much consumption could be reduced by reducing the population, but there are other ways. The fact that the world's debt-based fiat financial system requires ever-increasing consumption to avoid collapse suggests one alternative. Check out this series for an eye-opener:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA


Apparently, population growth itself is already leveling off or falling in the so-called first world countries. As RFKJr has pointed out, massive growth occurs in areas where large families are needed to support the parents, and where women are subjugated. The rub is the world cannot afford to secure their lives via a first-world consumption based model for obvious reasons. A truly sustainable economic system seems to me the most likely answer.

We have a sustainable economic system. Its tailored to keep the elite as the elite and is by default stable as they the elite need stability.

None the less, I am just of the opinion having a few decades of experience that the world was a better place when it was less populated.

When I was a teenager I lived in a major city ... well I lived in Detroit city. You could drive a half hour in any direction and be in a rural or somewhat rural peaceful and beautiful place. Today the metro area is so vast you drive an hour+ and still be in suburban city settings.

The natural places are disappearing. I for one don't look forward to living in Corscunt.
 

ddjd

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
4,282
Hunter Biden invested in a pandemic firm collaborating with EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute Of Virology.

The company has worked alongside Shi Zhengli & Peter Daszak producing Fauci-funded [fake] studies linking outbreaks to Chinese wet markets.

The company is Metabiota, a San Francisco-based company that purports to detect, track, and analyze emerging infectious diseases.

Metabiota has also been embroiled in controversy for “bungling” America’s response to Ebola, misdiagnosing cases and misreading the trajectory of the virus.


View: https://rumble.com/vsx7b0-the-american-journal-peter-daszak-was-working-for-the-cia.html
 

Similar threads

Top