Tex Lahoma
Bluebeerriver
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Duffy,in BBC news online magazine states :
No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted... In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
The possible reasons of the Bilderberg group’s conference can be:
1) The secrecy of Bilderberg meetings hint towards an artificial 'consensus' in some important global issues like war, finance, politics etc.
2) Since all the members of the bilderberg group are pro globalization, the annual meetings reinforce their support for globalization.
3) This group works as a forum for interviewing and selecting of the potential future world leaders Like Obama, Clinton., so that their main purpose of accumulation of wealth and power remains in their own hands.In 2008 both the US presidential candidates Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton had a meeting with Bilderberg group in Westfields Marriott,Virginia.
The goal of Bilderberg Group
Total control of the world and take the world towards globalization. In fact most of the elite of the world think alike specially those who are interested in totalitarian regime or world .Though not all elite want this type of scenario, a handful number of elite,powerful enough to influence the world economy, think they are controlling the world economy. What else can be better than globalization if some of the elite have the total control of world politics and economy. Perhaps Bilderberg believes in god-is-money theory There are many things going on under the curtain what we common people don’t know or not try to know, even some are not interested to know. Yet we can not leave our future to the hands of a few irrational elite. Maybe time tell us the truth, yet we should not wait for the truth to come out rather its always better to figure out the truth. andromida.hubpages.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so maybe most people don't care much about their constitutional rights or even the United States keeping her sovereignty, I do but maybe that's a personal problem. These unelected, spoiled elitists are basically running the world as it is, but to vote for the candidate that they want? Are you crazy? You can call it conspiracy theory if you want but here are a few quotes that are just a peek into the minds of the global elite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Cousteau….
“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”
CNN Founder Ted Turner….
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren….
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
On page 786, it says that single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government and that they could be forced to have abortions if the government decides that is what is best:
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
On pages 787 and 788, the book advocates the mass sterilization of humans by putting drugs in the food and water supply:
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
On pages 786 and 787, the authors discuss the involuntary sterilization of women after their second or third child:
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
On page 838, the authors state their belief that there is nothing wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size:
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
On pages 942 and 943, the authors call for the creation of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures:
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
On page 917, the authors advocate the surrender of national sovereignty to an armed international police force:
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
signsofthelastdays.com
David Rockerfeller
No comments:
Post a Comment