Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
No Censorship

Who Runs The Show?

52 posts in this topic

Makes perfect sense to clammer to the "Financial Food Chain" of a society, remember they do have members very high in the organisation that are bankers ;)

There's no doubt that you can find a fair share of Freemasons in extremely high positions. I don't think that the group, itself, runs the show, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rlyeh posted

Talk about clutching at straws.

yes grabbing at straws when you can only nitpick 1 of the 4 or 5 links I posted with no response but a derogatory comment. Disprove it instead of poo pooing it next time. it only makes you look bad when you cant provide a rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the rothschilds hold a pretty tight grip

those who control money rule the world...and they control the money

they've used shrewd and cruel tactics to aquire this power

a freind has recommened a book called "the creature from jekyll island" by G.Edward Griffin

about the creation of the fedral reserve...the rothschilds played a pivotol role in its conception and from what i understand a long term plan on world power and domination..a one world goverment

i mean its this family who meets for tea in the morning and decides what the price of gold will be that day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rothschild, Warburg, Oppenheimer, Schiff.

They run the Crown and thereby many banking and legal systems core foundations. The Vatican is hugely wealthy from a monetary and religous aspect. 3rd world nations are considerably powerful due to their populations and immigration patterns.

But are they any happier than a bum going for a surf? Probably not. The elite run a particular show and best of luck to them. They have to wear suits and are somewhat imprisoned in their power structures.

I'd rather be a rock star. That's the show I want to run - Can the Rothschilds play like Yngwie Malmsteen? No.

Edited by Dragonwind
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

yes grabbing at straws when you can only nitpick 1 of the 4 or 5 links I posted with no response but a derogatory comment. Disprove it instead of poo pooing it next time. it only makes you look bad when you cant provide a rebuttal.

lol. Gates supports the UN who is bad. The UK is bad, contraception is also bad.

Can you get anymore ******* pathetic?

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol. Gates supports the UN who is bad. The UK is bad, contraception is also bad.

Can you get anymore ******* pathetic?

where do you read that at. Now your just straight up lying about my post. So yeah the UK is bad and full of a bunch of liars. Based on the one sample (you) youve given. They all must be liars. Get real.

Im using your logic not mine. So grow a pair next time and provide a rebuttal that pertains to the topic if your gonna attack someone. I never mentioned the UN (which is bad btw) nor the UK...The topic was India unless you still consider them one of your colonies your confused at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

where do you read that at. Now your just straight up lying about my post. So yeah the UK is bad and full of a bunch of liars. Based on the one sample (you) youve given. They all must be liars. Get real.

You're not very bright are you? You listed the points

  • The Gates Foundation is partnering with the U.N., which already supports China’s one-child per family limit. The programs cite “global warming” as a reason to limit the number of people.
  • The Gates Foundation is a “Key Partner” with the World Health Organization and its history around the globe of forcibly sterilized women.
  • Last month’s conference was aided by the U.K.’s Department for International Development, “which has given aid money to India despite warnings that it would be sued to forcibly sterilize poor women.”
  • The U.K. already builds abortion policy into its foreign aid packages.
  • And the Gates Foundation supports the Save the Children group, “which has been a major promoter of the population-control agenda.”

Guilt by association?

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guilt by association?

There is a point when guilt by association takes a front seat. India forcibly sterilizes people. The Gates Foundation provides $$ to help contraception in India. Yes thats guilt by association and not philanthropy. Turning a blind eye got a few Germans hung in Nuremberg but I wouldnt expect you to know this.

Bill Gates and Monsato plan on wiping out world hunger together as well. Its a great plan.

But thats ok if your such a Gates fan just leave all your money to a charity when you die and all your sins will be forgiven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Callling me names says youve either been on a bender for a few days or dont have any better social skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is a point when guilt by association takes a front seat. India forcibly sterilizes people. The Gates Foundation provides $$ to help contraception in India. Yes thats guilt by association and not philanthropy. Turning a blind eye got a few Germans hung in Nuremberg but I wouldnt expect you to know this.

Nice try but by that logic you're guilty of everything your government has done. You do pay taxes right?
Callling me names says youve either been on a bender for a few days or dont have any better social skills.

Someone like you should be used to it. The fact you can't handle your own treatment says you have thin skin. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might not understand your point. God and mammon are not the same thing. Many greedy people claim to speak for God when they really don't, and they often serve mammon more than God. It's the love of money that's the root of all evil.

That had 2 different meanings, 1 connected to religion running the show and second to overall picture of who can run the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone like you should be used to it. The fact you can't handle your own treatment says you have thin skin.

OK. you got me. Your proof and evidence are so comprehensive I bow to your smelly feet and lick them scabs off.

Nice try but by that logic you're guilty of everything your government has done. You do pay taxes right?

Nunnyas !! :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that you can find a fair share of Freemasons in extremely high positions. I don't think that the group, itself, runs the show, though.

Ego & arrogance got them to where they are... it's only fair that they play on the issue of what the commisioned state of normality is.

You only have to follow the money/gold pal.

If Centralised Banking runs back to the Society (Rothschild). You have your answer.

Look at Gentlemans Clubs for business men. It's a comglomerate thought inserted into the domain then picked up because a majority is doing so. So when you throw power, money, wealth, international power, weapons and health into mix.

It goes further than that as the U.N. holds a retreat for all their reps in a Mason fashion, so not only do you have the most Powerful and Wealthy people in the world touching elbows and influencing whatever they want, but they are doing it so in a fashion that is holding a get-together for international hireachy.

The USA is like the evil monster toddler in a quiet store. You have wanted to smack it's **** and tell it to pull it's head in long before you heard about it. But it runs around pushing "standard"/influencing wars/robbing the general public whilst the rest of the world sits and says "Oh please be good lil Johnny".

We are so unintelligent as a species no matter how much the individual likes to think we aren't.

We were doomed by a decoritive item and building material...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That had 2 different meanings, 1 connected to religion running the show and second to overall picture of who can run the show.

I doubt that religion runs the show now. We live in a much more secular age now. The new emperors and popes run corporate interests and international banks. They have the gold, and they make the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ego & arrogance got them to where they are... it's only fair that they play on the issue of what the commisioned state of normality is.

You only have to follow the money/gold pal.

If Centralised Banking runs back to the Society (Rothschild). You have your answer.

Look at Gentlemans Clubs for business men. It's a comglomerate thought inserted into the domain then picked up because a majority is doing so. So when you throw power, money, wealth, international power, weapons and health into mix.

It goes further than that as the U.N. holds a retreat for all their reps in a Mason fashion, so not only do you have the most Powerful and Wealthy people in the world touching elbows and influencing whatever they want, but they are doing it so in a fashion that is holding a get-together for international hireachy.

Some people think that the UN is a paper tiger. They think that it exercises no real control or power. Other people think that it runs the world. They see it as a de-facto world government. You might fall into the latter category. I tend to take the middle ground. The organization makes extremely important and impactful decisions. It's a bureaucracy, though. It doesn't move as fast as the global money-changers do. It's the past face of globalism while transnational corporations and central banks are the present faces of globalism. One is a puppet show to a certain extent. The other pulls the strings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people think that the UN is a paper tiger. They think that it exercises no real control or power. Other people think that it runs the world. They see it as a de-facto world government. You might fall into the latter category. I tend to take the middle ground. The organization makes extremely important and impactful decisions. It's a bureaucracy, though. It doesn't move as fast as the global money-changers do. It's the past face of globalism while transnational corporations and central banks are the present faces of globalism. One is a puppet show to a certain extent. The other pulls the strings.

I fall into the catergory of calling it a Socialist Power Struggle, Can you really say they are a unified front with a non biased agenda? Why are they everywhere the resource war is delivering body bags and burning stations through FEMA weeks before the "war" starts in that area/country.

The only thing to make me see otherwise would be an explanation of why the Rothschilds (Centralised Banking) is also following the Resource War and as soon as a "horrid dictator" is taken down, a Central Bank goes in?

The system is the Loan Shark that follows your grandma to the park and sells her flowers picked from the ground.

(Analagy - Any retard can make something valuable)

I'm not the type of theorist that will run around screaming pixies are chasing me whilst the Government is sleeping with your children.

I'm the disgusted theorist, without too much detail is just speechless that we are such a belittled species running with open arms towards further backtracking and deciept.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fall into the catergory of calling it a Socialist Power Struggle, Can you really say they are a unified front with a non biased agenda? Why are they everywhere the resource war is delivering body bags and burning stations through FEMA weeks before the "war" starts in that area/country.

The only thing to make me see otherwise would be an explanation of why the Rothschilds (Centralised Banking) is also following the Resource War and as soon as a "horrid dictator" is taken down, a Central Bank goes in?

The system is the Loan Shark that follows your grandma to the park and sells her flowers picked from the ground.

(Analagy - Any retard can make something valuable)

I'm not the type of theorist that will run around screaming pixies are chasing me whilst the Government is sleeping with your children.

I'm the disgusted theorist, without too much detail is just speechless that we are such a belittled species running with open arms towards further backtracking and deciept.

I *do* think that it has a communist or socialist agenda. That's why leftist members often butt heads with members from capitalist countries. That's also why it isn't able to run the show. There are too many roadblocks. They're part of the very form and function of the UN. The members pass less real legislation than our Congress does. That is to say that their impact is negligible by comparison. I'm with you on the central banks. It might be more than a coincidence that there's a correlation between the absence of banks and the presence of wars. What would happen if a major player refused to play ball with the central banks? The latter may have to find their lost humility. It's doubtful that they would pick on someone their own size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not very bright are you? You listed the points

  • The Gates Foundation is partnering with the U.N., which already supports China’s one-child per family limit. The programs cite “global warming” as a reason to limit the number of people.
  • The Gates Foundation is a “Key Partner” with the World Health Organization and its history around the globe of forcibly sterilized women.
  • Last month’s conference was aided by the U.K.’s Department for International Development, “which has given aid money to India despite warnings that it would be sued to forcibly sterilize poor women.”
  • The U.K. already builds abortion policy into its foreign aid packages.
  • And the Gates Foundation supports the Save the Children group, “which has been a major promoter of the population-control agenda.”

Guilt by association?

There has been many antivacinal groups speak out about The Gates foundation saying that it's med trials have whilst doing their job of curing the specific disease has caused an outbreak of Nodding Disease and Paralysis. Not pushing these stories but I've seen a fair few out so I wouldn't be too willing or quick to jump the gun on riding his junk.

I *do* think that it has a communist or socialist agenda. That's why leftist members often butt heads with members from capitalist countries. That's also why it isn't able to run the show. There are too many roadblocks. They're part of the very form and function of the UN. The members pass less real legislation than our Congress does. That is to say that their impact is negligible by comparison. I'm with you on the central banks. It might be more than a coincidence that there's a correlation between the absence of banks and the presence of wars. What would happen if a major player refused to play ball with the central banks? The latter may have to find their lost humility. It's doubtful that they would pick on someone their own size.

Hence the U.N.'s ability to sanction war and tell what countries are able to fight and what aren't.

What roadblocks do you speak of?

I see an easy formula money + power = whatever the mind contents.

Throughout the millions of strings that tie everything in with eachother and as skeptics we are continously adding more strings/"connections". I think the FMS is a 20 pound red string and looks like a spiderweb. Just about every conspiracist theory can lead back to them as a whole or a person who is highly assosiated within.

It's not realy a worrying factor for myself we the people are all in this together and we will prevail :) (once again I don't run the streets screaming pseudopsychobabble lol) it just frustrates me that I see it plain and simple and so commonly, don't openly look but notice when it does tie in or appear in the world. Each to their own, I wouldn't blame someone for dismissing it... not really the nicest of things to think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chopmo, I meant that the UN was hampered and hindered by bureaucracy. I thought of all of the conflicting ideologies inherent in such an organization too. They indeed used Blue Helmets in some conflicts, but they weren't much of a military force in the manner of a global army. They weren't the modern version of Roman soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Asteroid. I still think that Bill and Melinda Gates have the best intentions. I'm familiar with the history of eugenics in the USA, but I don't think that the Gates are of that ilk. In fact, they probably would be disgusted by them.

I wonder , do you think that what these people like to sit around and suggest for everyone else is the same as what they to would have for their families? And who is anyone to suggest such a thing as in authorizing how many children a family may have ?

I think that , the world as we know it , that functions in accordance to a system of their currency , that the elite have thought up, which has impacted the earth and all it's inhabitants in the most harmful , negative ways , they've always opposed the natural cycle of nature , look around the world. And now they blame everyone else for the state the world is in?

For instance , there was a time when buffaloes roamed , no longer . I get so frustrated with the elite telling us how to live , when they have destroyed and have taken for themselves so much of the earths natural resources for the own personal wealth, and so now that they find it to be limited ?And so now , after a system that was forced on everyone, which was a way for them to become superior, they want to now control how many children a family is permitted to have ?

I'd like for so many others besides the elite to have a say in things that are the way way are , because of what they" the elite" do to the earth , and why it's in the condition it's in, besides their excuses for it being this way. They are the reason for so much that is to blame. Did we ever really need to be dependent on fossil energy?

I question the true intentions of Bill Gates . I think that contributing to fund the abortionist is not really making a real difference.It's not really solving anything. If we want to create a real change than we have to be real about the elite and our dependence on fossil energy to start with . There are other issues that the elite have created that have some parts of societies, communities living in over populated conditions.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/bill-gates-world-needs-fewer-people/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder , do you think that what these people like to sit around and suggest for everyone else is the same as what they to would have for their families? And who is anyone to suggest such a thing as in authorizing how many children a family may have ?

I think that , the world as we know it , that functions in accordance to a system of their currency , that the elite have thought up, which has impacted the earth and all it's inhabitants in the most harmful , negative ways , they've always opposed the natural cycle of nature , look around the world. And now they blame everyone else for the state the world is in?

For instance , there was a time when buffaloes roamed , no longer . I get so frustrated with the elite telling us how to live , when they have destroyed and have taken for themselves so much of the earths natural resources for the own personal wealth, and so now that they find it to be limited ?And so now , after a system that was forced on everyone, which was a way for them to become superior, they want to now control how many children a family is permitted to have ?

I'd like for so many others besides the elite to have a say in things that are the way way are , because of what they" the elite" do to the earth , and why it's in the condition it's in, besides their excuses for it being this way. They are the reason for so much that is to blame. Did we ever really need to be dependent on fossil energy?

I question the true intentions of Bill Gates . I think that contributing to fund the abortionist is not really making a real difference.It's not really solving anything. If we want to create a real change than we have to be real about the elite and our dependence on fossil energy to start with . There are other issues that the elite have created that have some parts of societies, communities living in over populated conditions.

http://www.wnd.com/2...s-fewer-people/

The difference is that those are just suggestions in the United States. It's mandatory, rather than voluntary, in China. Hence the appalling abortion rate there. The unintended consequences of that are the disparities in the availability and population of men and women. Female babies are killed. The number of single men rises as a result of fewer women. That creates hosts of economic and social problems. It's a recipe for disaster.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that those are just suggestions in the United States. It's mandatory, rather than voluntary, in China. Hence the appalling abortion rate there. The unintended consequences of that are the disparities in the availability and population of men and women. Female babies are killed. The number of single men rises as a result of fewer women. That creates hosts of economic and social problems. It's a recipe for disaster.

True , it is a disaster. But the reasoning in why the world is over populated goes much further past having babies. It's the way the system of currency is set in play to operate , to function, to bring wealth for the international bankers, the trilateral union, builder berg , ect. that has caused a devastating change to the way we are forced into a boxed like society. These people have took the global world over by force , and now they want to sit around and discuss population , and eugenics ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True , it is a disaster. But the reasoning in why the world is over populated goes much further past having babies. It's the way the system of currency is set in play to operate , to function, to bring wealth for the international bankers, the trilateral union, builder berg , ect. that has caused a devastating change to the way we are forced into a boxed like society. These people have took the global world over by force , and now they want to sit around and discuss population , and eugenics ?

Well they believe in Darwin's Survival of the Fittest and the Malthusian Principle, which are both without scientific basis. (Oh boy, I'm gonna get slammed for this...)

In 1798, Thomas R. Malthus (1766-1834), a 19th century pessimist, after reading about goats on Galapagos Island, published his essay Principles of Population. The essay extended his observations of goats to humans, and maintained that populations are unprincipled and have no internal constraints toward growth. Now, in the first half of the 19th century in Europe, members of the ruling classes met subsequent to the publication of Principles of Population to discuss "the population problem." Before Malthus, populations were considered to be an asset. After Malthus, the concept of land acquisition to support "future large populations" became a motivating factor for war.

Another aspect of Malthus' theory is that is maintained that "all animated life was governed exclusively by the sexual-reproductive drive. Like Freud, Malthus reduced a complex interplay of factors to just one factor-sexual drive. Reducing any issue to just one factor is reductive determinism, which on its face has little or no scientific merit. Although the Malthusian doctrine was one of the most influential of modern times, it never had any scientific basis. The Malthusian doctrine later came to the attention of Charles Darwin, who read Malthus' essay in 1838. For Darwin, who was familiar with the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes, "life consisted of a struggle, one against all." The Malthusian idea of existence also incorporated this Hobbesian viewpoint, and it appealed to Darwin. When applied to populations and society, it resulted in Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism appealed to the European elite, who saw it as prima facie justification their "evolutionary superiority." The elite adapted the Malthusian principle of "management of unprincipled populations"- population control. Moreover, Darwinism achieved orthodox status among his friends in the British Royal Society, two of whom were Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Galton founded the eugenics movement, which later expanded in the United States and subsequently in Germany.

Darwin's vision of existence as a "purposeless struggle", after 1859, quickly replaced the Judeo-Christian vision of human life as a purposeful, divinely guided moral struggle. This idea of "life as a meaningless struggle" played a decisive role in the brutalization of the Western world for the rest of the 19th and 20th centuries. Social Darwinism prompted the enlargement of colonial empires, and also conditioned a struggle for power on an unprecedented scale. The principle targets of war switched from enemy armies to populations themselves.

National Socialism, as seen in the Nazi Third Reich, was in fact applied Social Darwinism, built on a biomedical vision of race purification that progressed from sterilization to extensive killing-all of which was later transferred to the United States after World War II, manifested in the German allopathic medical paradigm involving drugs, surgery and radiation, combined with population experimentation (especially on the military, prisoners and those who could not defend themselves).

The combination of Malthusian population control, which included the deliberate neglect of populations and indirect methods of killing off population, with Darwinism, produced National Socialism (Germany), International Socialism (Marxist Russia) and International Corporate Capitalism (Global Socialism, headquartered in the United States), and these forms of social conduct have constituted the main reason for the unequal distribution of planetary resources, famines, planned biological warefare, environmental poisoning, suppression of knowledge, suppression of inventions, dependence on backward technology for the population, planned wars to kill off populations and general planetary disorder. The problem is in the Social Darwin-Malthus paradigm, which has now been combined with the pseudo-sciences of behaviorism and genetics in the attempt to assert even tighter control over the planetary population, yielding forms of Neo-Darwinism being perpetrated by a host of post-Atlantean re-treads, per a 1947 Princeton consensus.

Yes, the problem is in the paradigm, and it is deftly explained in the book Avoiding Extinction, as well as the solution to the problem which is already upon us (changing the paradigm through recognition of the nature of the current paradigm and its unscientific, perverted basis, and substitution of the quantum paradigm of scientific holism, and dumping the paradigm of materialistic scientism, science as a religion devoid of philosophy).

The Population "Non-Problem"

The thought pattern that "there are too many people on the planet" is without sound scientific basis. Yet, this is a theory that is being voiced to the population in order to justify global control and influence. There is enough room, and there are enough resources. Socialism and politics are in the way. If these were discarded, there would be equitable distribution of planetary resources and new technological development for peaceful purposes that would allow the population to peacefully expand into space. For a total understanding of all of this, read Avoiding Extinction.

Malthus opposed the optimism of the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), who saw the human mind as capable of removing all obstacles to human progress. Malthus wrongly predicted that the population growth rate would exceed the growth of the food supply. Today, analysts have resorted to constructing models in which population growth drives technological change, which permits further population growth. This is opposed, of course, by elitists and global socialist policy.

Even as early as the 18th century, projections for the carrying capacity of the planet far exceed the "gloom and doom - we have over 6 billion!" projections of social propagandists. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) estimated that the maximum number of people the planet could support was 13.4 billion. General estimates over time have varied greatly from "less than 1 billion" to "greater than 1 trillion." Estimated published by Harvard, ironically, estimate a maximum of 44 billion people (see the exhibit page).

With all of this in mind, it is quite clear that the actual objective of the recent population meetings in Cairo, Planned Parenthood and international institutions that preach population problems actually have another objective in mind - population reduction in order to preserve elitism and global socialist objectives, despite the fact that in reality, the planet Earth is currenty occupied by 13% of its maximum carrying capacity, and will only reach 25% of its maximum capacity by the year 2350.

So, having reviewed the material presented in Matrix IV, which details future life projections and various paradigms probing what life will actually be like for the next 500 years, we see that there are less people here - which means that the actual mechanism that will reduce population will be external to political processes, probably geological or dimensional in nature, or both. All political policies and projections then become invalid, unsupportable and irrelevant.

Taken from http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/malthusian_premise.htm

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kowalski !

That is insanity He did a study of goats and in his mind he compared them to humans? And this is what they go by ? This is why people need to be outspoken and state that eugenics is not the answer.

I think the true problem lies within the manipulation " by them" of natural order of the cycle of nature itself. I know we will never go back to hunter gatherer in the sense of the beginning .

A healthy life is not essentially based on the survival of the fittest in their terms of it being so . When the elitist have took over the farmers land they planned to do so for a reason, to control "the food supply" to control people, by force and by fear, they take everything and they continue to destroy the earth and all it's inhabitants as well with all their inventions and wars , to take and possess control over the earth. If that's what they consider survival of the fittest in their minds it is not .The only reason they fear population is because they fear losing control and that's why they sit around planning and plotting how to keep population down so they can continue to function and control within the system of illusion they have invented and manipulated pretty much globally.

And to think there are people , poor people, average people , rich people, that believe this stuff and support it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kowalski !

That is insanity He did a study of goats and in his mind he compared them to humans? And this is what they go by ? This is why people need to be outspoken and state that eugenics is not the answer.

I think the true problem lies within the manipulation " by them" of natural order of the cycle of nature itself. I know we will never go back to hunter gatherer in the sense of the beginning .

A healthy life is not essentially based on the survival of the fittest in their terms of it being so . When the elitist have took over the farmers land they planned to do so for a reason, to control "the food supply" to control people, by force and by fear, they take everything and they continue to destroy the earth and all it's inhabitants as well with all their inventions and wars , to take and possess control over the earth. If that's what they consider survival of the fittest in their minds it is not .The only reason they fear population is because they fear losing control and that's why they sit around planning and plotting how to keep population down so they can continue to function and control within the system of illusion they have invented and manipulated pretty much globally.

And to think there are people , poor people, average people , rich people, that believe this stuff and support it?

You should read what Darwin wrote about the Irish.... :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True , it is a disaster. But the reasoning in why the world is over populated goes much further past having babies. It's the way the system of currency is set in play to operate , to function, to bring wealth for the international bankers, the trilateral union, builder berg , ect. that has caused a devastating change to the way we are forced into a boxed like society. These people have took the global world over by force , and now they want to sit around and discuss population , and eugenics ?

The Bilderberg group met this week. Was it just a coincidence that we learned about the NSA-Verizon program this week? We also found out that the major players let the spies have carte blanche with their servers and that they track credit cards. Next, we'll learn that we all have listening devices in our homes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.