Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

The Illuminati & the 95% population reduction


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1    Antimony

Antimony

    Her Most Delicious Purpleness

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Catatonia

  • It's a Pony!

Posted 03 April 2010 - 08:44 PM

Initially this post was meant as a response in Chessnovicer's thread "Understanding the greatest conspiracy".

But because the 95% population reduction seems to haunt quite a few people out there, I decided that it deserves a thread on its own. I hope you'll agree.

Just for the sake of whether it is feasible or not, we'll assume that the "Illuminati" exist, are completely void of any conscience & possess limitless funds. We'll also assume that the remainder making up the 350 million are willing to go along with their plan. Although frankly, these issues alone put the whole claim into doubt.



So, let's have a look at this, shall we.

The world population currently stands at around 7 billion (I'll use round numbers throughout to make it easier).

A 95% reduction would equal having to get rid of 6.6 Billion people. That's 6600 million people, just to make it clear.

Now, there's two ways to go about that. Short-term or long-term.

Let's look at short-term first. How to kill 6.6 Billion people? I say with 99.9% certainty it's impossible.

- Any measure involving nuclear weapons on this scale is nonsensical as it would render the whole planet inhabitable for generations & kill off most other animal life as well.

- The same goes for chemical weapons. Imagine the amounts of toxins released in air or water-supplies. What would happen to them? They'd poison the entire ecosystem. Then the logistics.. Preparing this on a global scale simultaneously without anyone noticing? Very unlikely.

- Using a highly virulent designer-virus/disease (With the corresponding vaccine for the Illuminati, of course)? Too risky & very likely still too slow. The chances of either the virus mutating & rendering the vaccine useless, thus threatening the Illuminati with dying from it too or the rest of the world being able to contain it before the virus made it around the globe are very high.

-For those who think AIDS, H1N1 or the like could be candidates, their origins are well documented & it's obvious they're not working . Population growth still largely outstrips related deaths.

- Waiting for an impending cataclysm in 2012 or whenever: That's not planning, that's hoping for a "miracle" doing the work for you.

With regards to the idea that the Illuminati would hide in underground facilities:

- You'd have to assume that they would have to shelter the entire 350 million people they want to save, wouldn't make sense otherwise.

- Weather mountain can shelter "several hundred" people max. But let's be generous, let's assume they built huge facilities that can shelter a thousand people. The Illuminati would have had  built 350'000 facilities in the last 60+ years (from when we had the technology to do so) without anyone noticing.  You do the maths.

- Sure, they could have built a handful of facilities to house the "Elite". But for the "common foot folk" they would have to use pretty much every pre-existing, and hence, known fallout-shelter & underground facility ever built. Most fallout-shelters these days have not been maintained or been converted for other uses, belonging to private individuals. Build millions of new ones without anyone noticing? Possible, but very unlikely.

- Whatever they would use to kill 6.6 Billion people, they would have to wait in the shelters at least a year for the bodies to decompose. What would happen in the meantime to sensitive installations such as Nuclear reactors, Chemical factories, Oil Refineries,  etc.? Who would man them to prevent disasters?

So, to sum it up, a short-term population reduction is completely unrealistic, if not fantastic.

What about a long-term strategy?

-  Annual births are currently about 134m per year. Annual deaths are about 56m, but expected to rise to 90m in 2050 (acc. to wiki). So we have an annual global net population growth of about 78m, or a bit over 1%.


- So, alone to offset net population growth, you'd have to kill an additional 78m people a year. That would be a 120% increase in mortality. You need to pause a moment here & try to visualize that number. 78 million people. That's  over 200'000 people a day. Do you seriously believe that wouldn't be noticed?

- If you would want to accomplish the 95% reduction in 50 years, you'd have to kill about an additional 1% every year. That's around 140m people a year, every year, for the first 30 years at least just to get to a "decent" downsize. (I'm leaving out exponential decline for simplicity).

- If you'd want to do it in 100 - 150 years, you'd need a negative population growth of about 0.5%, so, kill around 100m people a year. That's always on top of the 'normal' death rate.

- So, even if they would find one or several discrete ways of doing it,  alarm bells would go off everywhere as soon as death rates rocket & the global growth rate becomes negative. Government institutions & scientists in every country would immediately start to investigate to find the causes.

- Even a "fast version" of 50 years gives ample time to identify the cause & develop a remedy/vaccine/cure or simply contain it, should it be a virus/disease.

- The same logic applies to covert sterilization attempts, "induced" suicides or drug-use, deaths by pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. This "project" cannot be done by subtle means. The death-rates required to successfully reduce population  would just be too high not to be noticed.

- Population reduction by war is also a nonsensical proposition. WWII, the 'deadliest' war in history, caused "only" 60m deaths. You'd need a war over 10 times deadlier, or 10 WWII's , etc.. Who would support such wars until that is achieved? Without completely destroying the planet in the process?


Conclusion: A forced 95% population reduction is utterly unworkable . I for one am not worried. Unless you're telling me that the Illuminati, should they exist, are completely lacking in any practical & mathematical skills whatsoever. I'd seriously doubt that.


I'd like to add a couple of thoughts about the famous or rather infamous quote on the Georgia Guidestone, from which the notion supposedly stems ("Maintain humanity under 500'000'000 in perpetual balance with nature").
If you take the trouble of reading the authors' elaborations on it, which can be found here, there is no mention or indication whatsoever that they intend to achieve this by killing people. They clearly talk about birth control & try to warn people about over-population.

And IMO, they are absolutely right to do so (warning about over-population, I mean) & their observations are very sensible.  Anyone who doesn't realize the acuteness of the problem & simply relies on the advancement of technology to make it go away is day-dreaming.

Purely theoretically, in the way they are suggesting it, the 95% population reduction could be achieved, of course. But only in a concerted, global, voluntary effort, involving an enormous amount of common-sense and self-sacrifice from all of humanity. And that's not very likely to happen either.



PS: I'll have to turn off my PC now, there's a massive thunderstorm coming. So, I'm not ignoring any replies...just don't want my machine to get fried...

Edited by Antimony, 03 April 2010 - 08:51 PM.

Posted Image
Claudine went to the Ladies to power her nose.

#2    chemical-licker

chemical-licker

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Banned
  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2010 - 09:16 PM

hope i'm first:D


#3    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 03 April 2010 - 09:38 PM

OK, if they are as you describe, without conscience and with limitless power, why exactly is it that they don't act on their plans and why would anyone with that kind of power and personality choose to be so reclusive?

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#4    Antimony

Antimony

    Her Most Delicious Purpleness

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Catatonia

  • It's a Pony!

Posted 03 April 2010 - 10:27 PM

Well, that was kind of my point....

I do not believe that the Illuminati exist.

And even if they did, and were not completely demented, they wouldn't seriously try to implement such a plan.

That paragraph was meant for sake of being able to work through the idea. That's why I wrote: "Just for the sake of whether it is feasible or not, we'll assume..."


I forgot to add the link for the Guidestone document: link The relevant bit is on page 20.

Edited by Antimony, 03 April 2010 - 10:35 PM.

Posted Image
Claudine went to the Ladies to power her nose.

#5    Astute One

Astute One

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts
  • Joined:15 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2010 - 10:32 PM

There is a patent at the US Patent Office for the infection caused by yersinia pestis bacteria and known as the bubonic plague vaccine that is owned by the UK . Below is the link to patent at the US Patent Office. Read the patent that was secured August 11, 2009. It is very disturbing. The patent indicates this plague is 100 percent lethal in lab animals and the vaccine doesnít cure all. It only prolongs life in those that get it too late.

http://patft.uspto.g...2449&RS=7572449

Keep in mind the black plague was only 30% fatal 100's of years ago, so what has changed. This appears to be a bioweapon that is 100% fatal.  So, the UK has a patent for a bioweapon that could kill every person on the planet.  Now, why would they have this vaccine?  Think you will get it?  Guess again.  Don't think it is real, review the patent.


#6    Antimony

Antimony

    Her Most Delicious Purpleness

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Catatonia

  • It's a Pony!

Posted 04 April 2010 - 12:05 AM

Ehhm...you need to read that patent again. It is a vaccine against bubonic plague. Not the plague pathogen itself.

Why develop & patent a vaccine against the bubonic plague?

a] because the disease was never 100% eradicated. Cases keep cropping up here and there, esp. in Central Asia. There have even be some cases of antibiotic-resistant strains. Having an effective vaccine is a pretty good idea, if you ask me. By the way, that vaccine is not the only one anyway.

b]Yersinia pestis has been used in warfare. The Japanese tried to infect Chinese in the second Sino-Japanese war (acc. to wiki). It's called Bioweapon. That's why the British Ministry of Defense worked on that vaccine, I imagine. Again, good to have a vaccine around.

On bioweapons in general: If we knew in full what our governments are developing behind closed doors, our blood would curdle. No Illuminati needed for these horrors at all.

Posted Image
Claudine went to the Ladies to power her nose.

#7    Enigmatic Annasawzi

Enigmatic Annasawzi

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, why would you want to know

  • Frank Herbert, who, oh him the guy who tried showing our sameness through fiction, he's dead, does it matter?

Posted 04 April 2010 - 12:55 AM

I have a non sensical, and entirely false answer, zombies....only if it were true, then any "society type", can initiate an attack worldwide, if and when won't matter as long as you make sure on the surface a small society survives. And the elitists can have their ships out at sea or in the air. Plus a zombie threat would be diverted by all the video-game generation, who in their ability to understand a zombie outbreak(and otherwise insane idea henceforth, we should call this generation the Z-gen), would easily wipe out the infection.

All in all, it might take 50% of the pop, but still not enough for some Illumi-folk, who'd want a 90+ event. If it were possible, then the rest they can easily infilitrate, and take out the old fashioned way, through small tribal wars(for territory of course). That'll probably help-ish.



THen again, zombies are faker then that tiny wagon that runs through my house to my bathroom with the little guy on it ya-ing away at the horses....for those who don't know what this is from, shame on you.


EA

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."
―Luke Skywalke

#8    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 04 April 2010 - 01:07 AM

View PostEnigmatic Annasawzi, on 04 April 2010 - 12:55 AM, said:

I have a non sensical, and entirely false answer, zombies....only if it were true, then any "society type", can initiate an attack worldwide, if and when won't matter as long as you make sure on the surface a small society survives. And the elitists can have their ships out at sea or in the air. Plus a zombie threat would be diverted by all the video-game generation, who in their ability to understand a zombie outbreak(and otherwise insane idea henceforth, we should call this generation the Z-gen), would easily wipe out the infection.

All in all, it might take 50% of the pop, but still not enough for some Illumi-folk, who'd want a 90+ event. If it were possible, then the rest they can easily infilitrate, and take out the old fashioned way, through small tribal wars(for territory of course). That'll probably help-ish.



THen again, zombies are faker then that tiny wagon that runs through my house to my bathroom with the little guy on it ya-ing away at the horses....for those who don't know what this is from, shame on you.


EA

I don't know how they'll do it but I have great faith that they will. KennyB


#9    Antimony

Antimony

    Her Most Delicious Purpleness

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Catatonia

  • It's a Pony!

Posted 04 April 2010 - 02:30 AM

View PostEnigmatic Annasawzi, on 04 April 2010 - 12:55 AM, said:

I have a non sensical, and entirely false answer, zombies....
EA

That, or a huge, highly-trained army of water-voles who will, on a pre-ordained signal, sneak into people's bedrooms and stuff a poisonous pill into their left ear.

Posted Image
Claudine went to the Ladies to power her nose.

#10    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    a dark, sarcastic, depressing blanket of nihilism

  • Member
  • 25,376 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 04 April 2010 - 07:27 AM

Whether or not it's impossible, I've never understood the point of it. The argument mostly put forward seems to be "in order to conserve the earth's resources so the elite can perpetuate themselves for perpetuity". Well, leaving aside the question of what's the point of ruling if there's hardly anyone left to rule (it just brings to mind a vision of Ernst Stavro Blofeld in a cave, stroking a cat; "ruling the world" just for the sake of it), if the illuminato are so ruthless and unhuman, why are they so concerned about ecological awareness? If they're going to shut themselves away under a mountain, why worry about the climate? And if there's only a few thousand of you, why would you need worry about natural resources? As long as you had a supply of water and a power source (probably nuclear), you'd be happy. I do wonder if it isn't all a subtle attempt to plant suspicion of ecologists and the like, to make people wonder if they might not be following the same agenda....?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#11    el midgetron

el midgetron

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the middle of the mitten

  • saturnalian brother

Posted 04 April 2010 - 09:06 PM

View Post747400, on 04 April 2010 - 07:27 AM, said:

Whether or not it's impossible, I've never understood the point of it. The argument mostly put forward seems to be "in order to conserve the earth's resources so the elite can perpetuate themselves for perpetuity". Well, leaving aside the question of what's the point of ruling if there's hardly anyone left to rule (it just brings to mind a vision of Ernst Stavro Blofeld in a cave, stroking a cat; "ruling the world" just for the sake of it), if the illuminato are so ruthless and unhuman, why are they so concerned about ecological awareness? If they're going to shut themselves away under a mountain, why worry about the climate? And if there's only a few thousand of you, why would you need worry about natural resources? As long as you had a supply of water and a power source (probably nuclear), you'd be happy. I do wonder if it isn't all a subtle attempt to plant suspicion of ecologists and the like, to make people wonder if they might not be following the same agenda....?

"Hardly anyone left to rule"? Go look up when the worlds population reached 500,000,000. It might help put it into perspective for you.

I don't think the larger concept is really that complicated. You don't even have to consider a "what-if" of the "illuminati". Maybe just read up on Mao, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot?

Despite how you continue to struggle with this "more people = more power" thing, the actions of histories leaders don't support your argument. None of the great conquests were done so to gain more "people". Sure, the incidental slaves were taken from conquered lands but that wasn't the purpose behind them. If anything, the most powerful leaders of history often are the ones with the largest body counts to their credit. Go figure.

Its weird how the general consensus is usually that the planet is over-populated. However in contrast, arguments like 747's seem to suggest that the worlds leaders, if anything, would be conspiring to increase the population.

Posted Image

"Feels good to be breaking the laws in America again" - Kenny Powers


#12    glyndowers heir

glyndowers heir

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined:03 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peoples Democratic Republic of Wales

  • We Are What We Are,
    But Some Of Us Are Not What We Seem!

Posted 04 April 2010 - 09:15 PM

Not that I believe this for a minute but if someone were to have a nefarious plot to reduce planetry population,
how about a world wide vaccination programme to combat a supposed dread disease or plague, but the vaccine is really a contraceptive jab that works for both sexes,

the decline in fertility could be blamed on a side effect of surviving the plague

this could reduce the planetry population drastically over a generation or so.

Edited by glyndowers heir, 04 April 2010 - 09:16 PM.

Some people are like Slinkys ™! -
they don't do much good when they sit around ,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down stairs


#13    Astute One

Astute One

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts
  • Joined:15 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:05 AM

View PostAntimony, on 04 April 2010 - 12:05 AM, said:

Ehhm...you need to read that patent again. It is a vaccine against bubonic plague. Not the plague pathogen itself.

Why develop & patent a vaccine against the bubonic plague?

a] because the disease was never 100% eradicated. Cases keep cropping up here and there, esp. in Central Asia. There have even be some cases of antibiotic-resistant strains. Having an effective vaccine is a pretty good idea, if you ask me. By the way, that vaccine is not the only one anyway.

b]Yersinia pestis has been used in warfare. The Japanese tried to infect Chinese in the second Sino-Japanese war (acc. to wiki). It's called Bioweapon. That's why the British Ministry of Defense worked on that vaccine, I imagine. Again, good to have a vaccine around.

On bioweapons in general: If we knew in full what our governments are developing behind closed doors, our blood would curdle. No Illuminati needed for these horrors at all.
I meant to write plague vaccine in my initial post.  Why does the patent say it's 100% lethal in lab animals when the black plague was not 100% lethal?  Yes, it is probably a vaccine to a bioweapon that was engineered to be 100% lethal.  

The BIG question is, who has the bioweapon and what are their intentions with it?  Give the vaccine to the 10% of the population you want to keep, then unleash the vaccine and presto, 90% depopulation acheived.  

I wonder how it spreads.  I wonder if they made it airborn.  I ran across some articles about the US digging up bodies in the lower 48 of spanish flu victim from 1918 or thereabouts. They biopsied the lung tissue and tried to get a live virus.  Now I understand the difference between a virus and bacteria.  I work with both in the oil business to perform remedation and to prevent crude souring.  The articles go on to say the defense department was unsuccessful in finding a live virus because the embalming fluid killed the virus.  So, they go to remote Alaska where they didn't embalm, and dug a women up from the frozen tundra and found the live virus.  Why?  Maybe just for flu research and maybe for a spanish flu weapon.  Or bigger yet, may to use to make the vaccine to the black plague.  Virus eat bacteria.  They can use a virus to attack the plague bacteria. Gobble, gobble.  Again, I'm speculating.  There is definitely something going on.  

http://www.scienceda...70702145610.htm

Last fall, a bioweapons expert who claimed to be with the Israeli Mossad residing in the US contacted an American talk show back in August and reported that Baxter International was intending to release a bioweaponized disease camouflaged as the H1N1 virus in the Ukraine. The expert was immediately surrounded by the FBI and SWAT while still on the phone, and taken into custody and portrayed and a person with mental instability issues. This was shown live on multiple networks including CNN and Fox. I saw the guy on TV.  After many gas grenades, the man just sat in his car barely affected by the gas. Only a person specially trained can withstand CS gas. The news report went on further to say the man called the President and was making threats. He was not placed in hand cuffs but was reportedly hauled away and deported.  No hand cuffs.  That’s strange.  This sounds like a courtesy given to fellow agents, doesn’t it?

This is a link to one of the initial reports of his capture.

http://www.theflucas...eapon&Itemid=64

Reports state that the man is in a US mental hospital. Here is the link to the website with a video.

http://labvirus.word...plague-warning/

Shortly after this guy was taken away.  A very bad outbreak of H1N1 hit Ukraine right in the city where this guy claimed.  The flu was so bad that it turned lungs to black liquid.  One description was, the lungs melted.  The WHO said they didn't know what was causing such horrible death.  It killed most within two days of infection. They didn't understand how the H1N1 could do this.  Then, they went silent for about 3 weeks.  Then, they came out and said, its just the H1N1 that everyone else has.  Sounds odd to me.  Maybe a trial run before using it elsewhere.

There was an executive signed by Obama last year that provides immunity to those who make and release a disease.  They can't be held accountable in any way unless it can be proved that misconduct has occurred.  It's a get out of jail free card for the pharm companies.  I'll post it if anyone wants to see it.  It's long but interesting.

The rabbit hole goes deeper.


Interesting, isn't it?  Makes you go HMMM!

Edited by Astute One, 05 April 2010 - 01:17 AM.


#14    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    a dark, sarcastic, depressing blanket of nihilism

  • Member
  • 25,376 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 05 April 2010 - 07:38 AM

View Postel midgetron, on 04 April 2010 - 09:06 PM, said:

"Hardly anyone left to rule"? Go look up when the worlds population reached 500,000,000. It might help put it into perspective for you.

I don't think the larger concept is really that complicated. You don't even have to consider a "what-if" of the "illuminati". Maybe just read up on Mao, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot?

Despite how you continue to struggle with this "more people = more power" thing, the actions of histories leaders don't support your argument. None of the great conquests were done so to gain more "people". Sure, the incidental slaves were taken from conquered lands but that wasn't the purpose behind them. If anything, the most powerful leaders of history often are the ones with the largest body counts to their credit. Go figure.

Its weird how the general consensus is usually that the planet is over-populated. However in contrast, arguments like 747's seem to suggest that the worlds leaders, if anything, would be conspiring to increase the population.
  But why did any of the greatest powerful leaders of history kill people in such numbers? There was always a reason for it (acquiring land for themselves, or (mainly) for ideological reasons. Few were concerned about conserving the earth's precious resources. Evil as some of them may well have been, just wanting to "Rule the world" wasn't even Stalin's ambition. It may have been Hitler's but he was very much the exception when it came to the world's dictators. Most of them just wanted absolute power within their own countries (and Hitler was very much concerned with increasing the pure Aryan population, which is why he wanted the Jews and the Russians out of the way to make room for them.)  What is the Illuminati's motives for doing this? Not conserving resources. That argument doesn't hold water. So is it for ideological reasons? That would seem the most plausible, if any was. What is their ideology? If we could spell out a plausible NWO ideology, we might be able to get somewhere.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#15    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,261 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 05 April 2010 - 07:48 AM

The basic ifrastructure would collapse without a lot of people to do the grunt work and keep up the elites' standard of living.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users