I felt sorry for the men interviewed. They have spent their whole lives trying to track down information about this phantom group and for what? I thought that they were perhaps no different from anyone who has spent their life pursuing an obsession but theirs seemed more blatantly pointless than many others. At least with religion you might become a better person because of your beliefs, but perhaps not.
The New York Times did a story about the Illuminati recently. Apparently it's the John Birch Society who is really upset about the Illuminati:
"(There is) a larger plot by an amorphous, amoral group of powerful elite — including but not limited to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Rockefellers — to take over planet Earth. Call it the New World Order.
Some of these theories may sound like cable television chatter, or the synopsis of a Dan Brown bestseller. But Birch leaders say this plot is real, with roots going back more than 200 years to a secret, insidious brotherhood called the Illuminati, and with most American presidents among its many dupes and abettors."
This is from the Illuminati News website:
All this chaos, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the overall disasters have a genuine purpose. It is all very carefully planned by a few people, mostly men, behind the scenes, high up in the society, above any power structure that the ordinary citizen is aware of. It is a modern extension of an old theme to "take over the world". To those people, power, control and wealth is their true religion and they use any means they can to maintain their power and control, including murder and genocide.
These people on top, who basically are of Royal Bloodlines, is currently working on reducing the world population in order to easier maintain their control, and ultimately the strive towards a centralization of power, which will include the whole world.
This is a very old plan; something the same bloodlines have been working towards for millennia. However, now is the time when they have the means to accomplish their goal and fulfill the "Work of the Ages". They see us citizens as inferior and are dehumanizing us in their own minds to the extent that they don't care if we live or if we die. In a future Global Society, if they manage to accomplish this to its full extent, you and I will be no more than slaves, whom they can kill and treat as they want anytime they want.
Many people call this the New World Order, but it is really an Old World Order which is now about to be fully accomplished, unless we do something about it.
Eliz again: The Illuminati aren't doing very well with their plan to reduce the world population, are they? So maybe their plans for world domination are in a similar state? Anyway, what's taking them so long if they've been in charge since the 1800s? (One man interviewed on the program I watched said the Illuminati had planned the Civil War and engineered the outcome.)
26 comments:
I think I saw something similar another time. It's theatre of cruelty to watch hapless individuals try to explain the figments of their imagination.
However I think we would be hasty to overdo the criticism - the global human society is an immense machine which defies comprehension, so there will always be some who try to put a sentient being at the centre of it because the concept that it may not make sense and that there isn't a pretermined goal which everyone is striving for goes against everything many cultures teach.
Due to worldwide abortion and contraception policies the earth's population has been decreased by at least one billion people since 1970. I would say that is a pretty successful operation, amounting to about 1/6th the world's population.
Don't despair Elizabeth, Obama has decided, in a move that displays his great love for mankind, to reinstate US funding for the United Nations Population Fund. (This is not a global fund, and it has no powers to go along with its 1.2 billion dollar budget, and it has nothing to do with population control)
By how much do you personally feel the world is overpopulated Elizabeth?
Kofi Anan (then Secretary General):
"I think UNFPA does very essential work and we have made it clear that it does not go around encouraging abortions. It gives good advice to women on reproductive health and does good work around the world, including in China." Last year, UNFPA spent $3.5 million in China from its budget of $274 million.
Thoraya Obaid (then Director of the Fund):
"Women and children will die because of this decision," Obaid said. She said $34 million would have been enough to prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness and over 77,000 infant and child deaths"
The above discussion was about US retraction of aid to the UNFPA in 2002, with the US money being transferred to US AID to promote child health programs. It seems a little contradictory to me, but then I am a conspiracy theorist.
est world population 1970 3.7bn
est world population 2009 6.7bn
Marty, where do you get your figures?
If there really is a sinister organisation that's been trying to control world population for the last 200 years, they haven't done a very good job. Seems to me that the population has been increasing exponentially.
Mel, I'm getting these numbers from this compilation, this page has a link at the bottom to another page where you can check out where Johnston dervies his numbers from. If you were to add to this number of registered abortions projections by the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood) of unregistered abortions, you could add about 80% to these figures. Add to these numbers births prevented through contraception and involuntary sterilization, and the number of prevented births well exceeds one billion. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp339.html
I see you use the term "exponentially" as an adjective in describing population growth as did Erlich in his book "The Population Bomb", which turned out to be a load of hogwash though it greatly influenced public policy. Hundreds of millions of people did not die during the 70's and 80's because of "exponential" population growth, to the contrary millions of more people were fed due to great increases in food production.
Any number can be expressed as an exponent of another number. Used in the sense you use it in the adjective becomes just a rhetorical device to build support for the proposition that there is a critical world population problem.
Both the US and Britain have expressed (the US as early as 1970 in NSM 200) overpopulation as a national security threat. Brown included it as a national security threat in a speech he made earlier this year. How does one answer a national security threat?
GW,
you're taking a very one-sided view of population if you don't mind me saying.
Global population levels have not decreased in the time frame you describe, but they have almost doubled due to improved healthcare and food programmes and they would be even higher if there was no effort to encourage planning for the future (which, yes does include education about ways to use foresight in preparing for reproduction).
With this extra billion or so living in the world today, because they would overwhelmingly live in the developing countries would disease, famine and conflict not be more prevalent? Where would they get energy supplies and what about the massive increases in pollution? what about the impact of deforestation or erosion in marginal areas?
I think you are treading a very fine line and are close to equating the use of contraceptives and murder. You seem to be showing your blinkers again.
Understanding and influencing demographic change is one of the biggest and most difficult areas for governance, and you shouldn't build some fantastic conspiracy theory just because you are incapable of recognising any threat or challenge.
How do you trade off abortion for war? Your moral relativism must make it difficult for you to sleep at night.
You misunderstand my position Oranjepan. I stand firmly with US AID:
"Caution is urged in moving too quickly toward changing population policy from anti to pronatalist postures. Fertility trends are still uncertain, and the impact of demographic trends on ageing and the effectiveness of pronatalist measures is not known. Even in low fertility countries, population numbers will continue to rise for several years. There are other options for low fertility countries in greater use of foreign workers and greater use of the elderly worker. Justification is sound for improving standard of living for all citizens."
http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll?BU=http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll&QF0=DocNo&QI0=099356&TN=Popline&AC=QBE_QUERY&MR=30%25DL=1&&RL=1&&RF=LongRecordDisplay&DF=LongRecordDisplay
I propose UN sanctions against all countries supporting pro-natalist policies within their boundaries while promoting anti-natalist policies without. The US, UK, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Russia, and all the others should be denied any further UN aid from developing countries until they adopt the same anti-natalist policies supported by UNFPA in the developing world.
For the entire world to enjoy the same standard of living as that enjoyed by the developed world would require the resources of five planets; the middle class of the developed world expends resources at an alarming rate. These nations should strive to lower their populations and admit as many immigrants as carrying capacity can withstand from the developing world in the interest of social justice.
I'm not a pessimist though. I think my dream can be achieved. New genetic technology will allow us not only to control population growth but to improve the population through selective breeding. Liberalization of ideas regarding late term abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are certainly within our reach: who would support war over infanticide? Which is the more compassionate policy?
There is so much we can do, in so many areas. For instance, in agriculture we could expand the multitude of programs that pay farmers not to grow food- advances are being made on this front in the US even as we speak with our new energy bill, converting crop land into forest land. Other nations can do the same. Subsidized decreases in crop production create a greater sense of urgency in lowering global population, and a sense of urgency is needed if the population is to give wide support for ideas counter to traditionally held beliefs about the sanctity of life.
Education is another area where we can redouble our efforts. Children need to know from the outset that mankind faces global catastrophe due to overpopulation and the consequent warming of the atmosphere; they should firmly come to believe that the real enemy of mankind is mankind itself.
A quick look through history shows that prior to the Industrial Revolution war and famine did not exist; these things came into being only after advances in agriculture, medicine, education, and finance made it possible for the earth's population to increase exponentially, far outstripping the earth's capacity to feed the population. I'm with you on all this, my friend. We've simply got to get rid of some of these excess people to save humanity.
"For the entire world to enjoy the same standard of living as that enjoyed by the developed world would require the resources of five planets"
Only if the US was taken as the standard. What's the average mpg of a car stateside?
"prior to the Industrial Revolution war and famine did not exist"
In which universe?
Are you implying that war and famine existed when the earth's population was exponentially smaller than it is today? Where is your evidence for this? Are you trying in some arcane way to say that overpopulation is not the cause of war and famine?
I don't know what the avg mpg of a car in the US is, but what does that have to do with all those third worlders eating up the food the developed world needs to exist on? Every mouthful of rice eaten in China or India is one less for us, isn't it?
look up Bilderberg Group on wiki. If that doesn't convince you there's a conspiracy......
GW,
so you've reversed your position that population is growing exponentially? That was quick.
On war and famine, what is your point? That war and famine didn't exist before the industrial revolution? Excuse me while I laugh - even confining the scope of reference to my own country that is plainly flawed. I could show you some death certificates from my own family history if you're not convinced. Could you tell me precisely what effect industrialisation has had on any human predeliction for violence - was murder an invention of the 1800s too?
Perhaps you are getting confused over the difference between pronouns...
On mpg's, the global price of bread has been massively inflated by the practise of growing and selling wheat for ethanol, so I think it is highly relevent whether food is turned into fuel for living or fuel for driving.
“Before I interned at the Temple of Understanding, I did not even believe in or realize the seriousness of global warming. Now that I researched it, it is amazing we are not doing more to solve the problem. I would not even have known there was a problem had I not been an intern.” Male, age 16
------
"The Temple of Understanding is working on a new Partnership of Faiths for the Environment. It is our belief that this is a moral dilemma that includes social justice, equity and ecological sustainability. The only keepers of justice and moral obligations are the religions of the world. Governments have shown their inadequacy in this area without the support of a moral religious conviction. It is our hope that the Partnership of Faiths for the Environment will be effective in leading world governments towards a new vision of equity and sustainability." http://www.templeofunderstanding.org/wwa_Faith_Ecology.html
--------
"Pope Benedict XVI today called for reforming the United Nations and establishing a "true world political authority" with "real teeth" to manage the global economy with God-centered ethics."
--------
So, here we have the Catholic Church and the Temple of Understanding promoting the same goals. The Church is headquartered in Rome and the Temple of Understanding is headquartered at the UN in New York.
That might seem odd, an alliance between a group who believes in magic and elevating humans to god-status, and a group who believes in one God, but if you look at the founding friends of the Temple of Understanding it gets even odder:
http://www.templeofunderstanding.org/wwa_founding_friends.html
Two popes believe in magic?
It's even odder than that though, if you consider that the Temple was founded by the Lucis Trust which was originally called Lucifer's Trust.
As wacky as you folks might think the conspiracy theorists are, they are at least matched by these really wacked out theosophists and fish-hat wearing men.
How can it possibly be that these fraudulent religious organizations can have the same goals promoted by the extreme left? And how can it be that these extreme views of ecology have been so accepted by society at large?
Well, if you believe in man-made global warming it's not such a stretch to believe in magic circles, god-men, earth charters, world federations, and magic spells:
http://www.lucistrust.org/invocation/
Well, OJ, I thought you said that an extra billion people on the earth would have automatically caused war and famime:
"With this extra billion or so living in the world today, because they would overwhelmingly live in the developing countries would disease, famine and conflict not be more prevalent?"
Maybe war and famine have some cause other than overpopultion, but I'm not convinced, are you?
You are right, I did find some historical references to war and famine when the earth's population was less than one billion, I was wrong to blame war and famine on the Industrial Revolution.
Sorry about using all that ethanol, but the enviromentalists came up with that idea to combat global warming and the Democrats voted to give the greedy oil companies a 50 cent per gallon tax subsidy on every gallon of fuel containing at least 5% ethanol. It's one of those bugs we have to work out. If we don't use ethanol England and the Maldives will be underwater in a decade or so, but if we do use it then bread will cost more. I guess I really ought to apologize for using it and for not using enough of it.
GW,
It's not a conspiracy if it is announced openly and is subject to political and legal processes. So calling such plans a conspiracy is a basic smear and untrue.
You may disagree with their plan and you may not like their reasons for undertaking it but you are perfectly capable of independently using those existing processes to show your opposition and try to influence the outcome.
Anybody can take random quotes to make any point they like, but unless you can show that such an opinion is widespread and that there are deep and abiding connections between the different references then you have done nothing more than highlight a potential coincidence.
Frankly all I see is someone who objects to the politics of the 'extreme left' because they think it is of the 'extreme left' and has then used their ideological objections to extrapolate a political relationship to other pet hates and hobby horses.
Maybe Elizabeth can do another in the series of logic posts this time on the subject of extrapolation and the problems of increased uncertainty this can cause.
Like I said, this is a matter of pronouns.
Overpopulation may be A cause of war and famine - it is certainly not 'automatically' THE one and only cause.
It would certainly be foolish to neglect potential causes and fail to make contingency plans!
I also think you've falsely categorised 'the environmentalists' by your oppositional mentalisty.
Food vs fuel is another false choice which you choose to make for yourself - it would be less of an issue if more HumVees were capable of 100mpg than the more usual 14mpg - the hand-in-glove relationship between the oil and auto companies was one of prime reasons why Detroit is suffering.
I suspect your two-party system is having an unhelpful polarising effect on the way you are contextualising issues.
Marty, two groups having similar stated goals in a particular area doesn't constitute an alliance, as you seem to be implying.
Similarly, individuals with similar interests tend to pursue simlar agenda. That much is obvious. Indeed, if two individuals with similar interests acted differently from one another, that's what would be surprising.
Before something is a conspiracy, it requires meetings and planning. And for the conspiracy to be effective, it requires that planning must be followed up and executed.
A conspiracy of the type you seem to be imagining would require a vast army of conspirators, far too many to keep the operation secret. And I'm not talking about some powerful figures meeting quite openly in a hotel from time to time.
Anyone who has tried to get quite simple things done in a large organisation will tell you how difficult it can be. Steering the course of a whole planet while remaining hidden from view would be totally impractical.
You are right once again. Perhaps I did falsely categorize the environmentalists, because even ExxonMobil has embraced the three e's of sustainability (there are really 5, but we only talk about three because people learn in things more easily when they are presented in 3's)- http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_speeches_20090617_sks.aspx
Do you mean to tell me the auto companies in America have been conspiring with the oil companies to make us use more oil? Darn! The bastards! They got me on that one.
The Vatican and the Temple of Understanding both took part in the 1992 Earth Summit, from which arose the concept of the three E's-environment, economy, and equity.
If you look at the Lucis Trust site you will see they believe in triangles too, they have an international network of triangles that daily participate in casting the Great Invocation.
Here is an article from today's USA Today where the Pope is echoing concern over the three e's-http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-07-07-pope-encyclical_N.htm?csp=34
The only reason I'm bringing this religious stuff up is to point out to you global warming supporters the really crazy religious agenda that has contributed so much to the promotion of the idea. The five e's, if you do enough reading to find out, are rooted in the five elements- earth, air, water, fire, and ether. The five e's: http://www.eeeee.net/sd_manifesto.htm
Agenda 21, which came out of the Earth Summit, which the Temple, the Vatican, three other global interfaith organizations, and the Protestant Churches all had input into addresses the five e's with an outlined program for global governance of the earth, air, water, energy, and faith.
The first three e's being concentrated on are economy, equity, and environment. I've never said this was a conspiracy, I've always said it was an open plan (to anyone who reads the relevant documents).
I bet you didn't even know that right now, in pursuit of the Millenium Development Goals, both the US and UK and the EU are engaged in the Decade of Education for Sustainability. The aim of this program is to immerse children worldwide in the theology of the sustainability movement. http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=27279&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
The Earth Charter, central to the ESD, is kept in the Ark of Hope, along with some other magical documents. The Earth Charter is the new 10 commandments of the UN. This is some seriously crazy bullshit. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ENG-Linder.pdf
I'm not necessarily opposed to all this, I find it interesting. But I do wonder about the atheists among you, how you can so willingly accept the doctrines of this theology while professing no belief in God. The early theosophists said they would conquer and eliminate Christianity and atheism at the same time. All it's taken to sway you atheists into the doctrine is a few exaggerated reports by scientists working for an international organization that has as it's spiritual foundaton the ultimate catholicism of theosophy.
Mel, once again I am NOT saying there is a conspiracy. I am saying there is an open plan, with a clear trail of documents going back to at least 1966 promoting these ideas. People just haven't been paying attention.
I would definitely say, though, that two groups participating in the same meeting, the Earth Summit, and then adopting the goals and language that came from that meeting, are aligned in purpose.
The only thing the Vatican disagrees on is the need to continue population control programs. That has been the case since the Earth Summit was first held. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/28/world/vatican-seeks-a-voice-in-earth-summit-resolutions-on-population.html
One of the ideas that came out of the Earth Summit was to form alliances between governments, corporations, faith-based organizations, and ngos in the form of public/private partnerships to promote the implementation of Agenda 21. Great progress has been made, with billions of dollars spent.
Even though it has all been done openly, people still, for the most part, are only vaguely aware of all the effort that has gone into it and what the overall goal is. At the same time, the people have adopted many of the concepts and language because the media has kept the concepts and language alive on an almost daily basis.
Don't ever try calling me an atheist or a theist. I'm not either. Why should they be the only two options?
I would bother to discuss this with you as my position is something which you clearly haven't considered, but your clear interest in scoring points prevents me from trusting you in a serious discussion.
Anyway there's just time for me to get to the pub.
Oj, I did not call you an atheist. However, I don't see how you can be neither an atheist nor a theist. You neither believe in God nor disbelieve nor don't and never did believe at all?
I'm not trying to score points on you. I thought you would at least find it interesting to know some of the little known details about the wackiness of the UN- after all it is the IPCC that is proposing to alter all our lives drastically.
Unless you are capable of defining your terms then it is impossible to find any grounds on which to make a choice.
Anyway there are literally hundreds of alternatives to the false dichotomy of theism and atheism... maybe that's the point of reading!
Talking about wackiness (I seem to be doing a lot of this currently), maybe if you feel it is a bad thing you could address your own wackiness before you criticise the tendency in others. Otherwise you're just being inconsistent and undermining your own argument.
You sure do see a lot of false dichotomies OJ.
Please, name me one of the hundreds of alternatives to believing or not believing in the existence of God.
How about pantheism?
Pantheism is just another form of belief in God.
That depends on your terms of definition.
Pantheism literally means that all is God.
I guess you can say that it doesn't, but you would be in the minority on that assertion.
Post a Comment