Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 19, 2016 at 4:02 am)robvalue Wrote: "What about the rights of the unborn child?"
Does anyone seriously think this question has never occured to a pro choice person? How utterly stupid do they think we are?
A fetus in the womb is a parasite. I know medically speaking they like to exclude it from the definition, but it fits all the criteria for a parasite. People should get to decide whether or not parasites that use them as a host get to live or not; otherwise you're putting the rights of parasites above the rights of the host. That is fucked up, in my opinion.
That's the exact position ironically of eugenics. The poor, mentally ill, and generally unfit are parasites on society, and should be removed for the good of society through abortion, forced sterilization, and mercy killing. No one has even commented on the paper I posted about abortion up to age 3 from the journal of medical ethics:
The point that is not getting across, is the upper levels of the social order despise us all. We are their parasites. It's an elitest attitude towards us all. Margaret Sanger was against blacks since in her day, black Americans really didn't have many rights, so it was easy to justify targeting them. So despite the historical evidence of the negro project, people still like to think it's all just conspiracy theory, when in fact it's the absolute horrible truth. And that's not even the worst of it. I guess I blame myself for not being able to clearly lay it all out, but I was relying on people researching it themselves so I don't have to type what is in the links or history.
Since no one will listen to the audio version from the presentation of what was talked about back in the 1960's on the plan to transform society, I'll give some quick points:
more information from the audio tapes from Dr. Richard Day who was at the time at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This was from a presentation in 1969, and just a fraction of the plan:
REDIRECTING THE PURPOSE OF SEX
Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way, that people won't be having babies.
CONTRACEPTION UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL
The first consideration here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected closely in people's minds with sex. They would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex, and contraception would be made universally available. Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. Contraceptives would be advertised and also dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!
SEX EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT
The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active. At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, and distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started. Many cities in the United States by this time have already set up school-based clinics, which are primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married, but this certainly would not be any longer considered necessary for sexual activity.
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION CONTROL
No surprise then that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade, he said, "Abortion will no longer be a crime." Abortion will be accepted as normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.
ENCOURAGING HOMOSEXUALITY
"People will be given permission to be homosexual," that's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. In addition, elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. In addition, I remember thinking, "How arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!" But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were very, very high and very revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive." Things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?" was one of the statements. There was no detail on what was meant by 'provocative clothing', but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain anatomic areas. This was around the time of the 'burn your bra' activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly, a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.
TECHNOLOGY
Earlier he said that sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much, much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don't remember the details. How much of that technology has come to my attention since that time. I don't remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical information.
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH IN IMPORTANCE
Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common - nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being together. More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together. This would tend to make the marriage relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less willing to have babies. The extended families would be smaller, and more remote. Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who did have to travel would feel they could get back to their families, not that they were abruptly being made remote from their families. But one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one city to another, was to create instability in the families. If both husband and wife are working and one partner is transferred, the other one may not be easily transferred. Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL
Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as of something else." Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF ASSASSINATION
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, "There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won't. This in the connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should then their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease. He also said something about diet information would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can't recall what they were. But I do remember having reflections about wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated foods would be. I regret I don't remember the details about nutrition and hazardous nutrition.
With regard to exercise, he went on to say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You don't need any special equipment or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it. "people will be running all over the place." And in this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made more widely available and glamorised, particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate people to develop an interest in running as part of a whole sort of public propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. In connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase. That this had a connection with the family too. As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely available - things like you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed. And of course we've now seen this. But this whole different approach to eating out and to previously prepared meals being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be brought about. The convenience foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn't deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people - and the kind you want to live longer.
EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCELERATING ONSET OF PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that "we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go." I remember this only as a general statement. I don't recall if any details were given beyond that.
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. He said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept , and feel at home. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realise that they don't need it."
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasised. and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear, but the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. The variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So yes, some people in the Churches might help and in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION
Another area of discussion was Education. In connection with education and remembering what he said about religion, was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said that the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. Somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognise that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE ATMOSPHERE
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out. There was a statement made at the time: "Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived. You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease, but if you were fit you survived. But now we've become so civilised - we're over civilised - and the unfit are enabled to survive only at the expense of those who are more fit." The abuse of drugs would restore, in a certain sense, the law of the jungle and selection of the fittest for survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
ALCOHOL ABUSE
The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and therefore use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence would be established so that more and more people would lose their privilege to drive. Again, much more in the way of psychological services would be made available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea being, that in order to promote this - drug and alcohol are used to screen out some of the unfit - people who otherwise are pretty good would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological counselling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he was saying, "You think we're bad in promoting these evil things - but look how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"
Wow. You have gone directly to full on, bat-shit crazy mode, haven't you?
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
(February 19, 2016 at 6:35 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
(February 19, 2016 at 4:46 pm)scoobysnack Wrote:
That's the exact position ironically of eugenics. The poor, mentally ill, and generally unfit are parasites on society, and should be removed for the good of society through abortion, forced sterilization, and mercy killing. No one has even commented on the paper I posted about abortion up to age 3 from the journal of medical ethics:
The point that is not getting across, is the upper levels of the social order despise us all. We are their parasites. It's an elitest attitude towards us all. Margaret Sanger was against blacks since in her day, black Americans really didn't have many rights, so it was easy to justify targeting them. So despite the historical evidence of the negro project, people still like to think it's all just conspiracy theory, when in fact it's the absolute horrible truth. And that's not even the worst of it. I guess I blame myself for not being able to clearly lay it all out, but I was relying on people researching it themselves so I don't have to type what is in the links or history.
Since no one will listen to the audio version from the presentation of what was talked about back in the 1960's on the plan to transform society, I'll give some quick points:
more information from the audio tapes from Dr. Richard Day who was at the time at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This was from a presentation in 1969, and just a fraction of the plan:
REDIRECTING THE PURPOSE OF SEX
Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way, that people won't be having babies.
CONTRACEPTION UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL
The first consideration here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected closely in people's minds with sex. They would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex, and contraception would be made universally available. Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. Contraceptives would be advertised and also dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!
SEX EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT
The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active. At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, and distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started. Many cities in the United States by this time have already set up school-based clinics, which are primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married, but this certainly would not be any longer considered necessary for sexual activity.
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION CONTROL
No surprise then that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade, he said, "Abortion will no longer be a crime." Abortion will be accepted as normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.
ENCOURAGING HOMOSEXUALITY
"People will be given permission to be homosexual," that's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. In addition, elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. In addition, I remember thinking, "How arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!" But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were very, very high and very revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive." Things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?" was one of the statements. There was no detail on what was meant by 'provocative clothing', but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain anatomic areas. This was around the time of the 'burn your bra' activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly, a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.
TECHNOLOGY
Earlier he said that sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much, much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don't remember the details. How much of that technology has come to my attention since that time. I don't remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical information.
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH IN IMPORTANCE
Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common - nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being together. More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together. This would tend to make the marriage relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less willing to have babies. The extended families would be smaller, and more remote. Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who did have to travel would feel they could get back to their families, not that they were abruptly being made remote from their families. But one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one city to another, was to create instability in the families. If both husband and wife are working and one partner is transferred, the other one may not be easily transferred. Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL
Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as of something else." Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF ASSASSINATION
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, "There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won't. This in the connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should then their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease. He also said something about diet information would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can't recall what they were. But I do remember having reflections about wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated foods would be. I regret I don't remember the details about nutrition and hazardous nutrition.
With regard to exercise, he went on to say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You don't need any special equipment or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it. "people will be running all over the place." And in this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made more widely available and glamorised, particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate people to develop an interest in running as part of a whole sort of public propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. In connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase. That this had a connection with the family too. As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely available - things like you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed. And of course we've now seen this. But this whole different approach to eating out and to previously prepared meals being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be brought about. The convenience foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn't deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people - and the kind you want to live longer.
EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCELERATING ONSET OF PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that "we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go." I remember this only as a general statement. I don't recall if any details were given beyond that.
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. He said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept , and feel at home. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realise that they don't need it."
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasised. and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear, but the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. The variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So yes, some people in the Churches might help and in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION
Another area of discussion was Education. In connection with education and remembering what he said about religion, was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said that the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. Somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognise that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE ATMOSPHERE
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out. There was a statement made at the time: "Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived. You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease, but if you were fit you survived. But now we've become so civilised - we're over civilised - and the unfit are enabled to survive only at the expense of those who are more fit." The abuse of drugs would restore, in a certain sense, the law of the jungle and selection of the fittest for survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
ALCOHOL ABUSE
The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and therefore use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence would be established so that more and more people would lose their privilege to drive. Again, much more in the way of psychological services would be made available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea being, that in order to promote this - drug and alcohol are used to screen out some of the unfit - people who otherwise are pretty good would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological counselling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he was saying, "You think we're bad in promoting these evil things - but look how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"
Wow. You have gone directly to full on, bat-shit crazy mode, haven't you?
Not at all. They are the ones that have gone bat shit crazy. All I did was quote from the audio of the presentation from 1969. Those are not my words. Keep in mind that is just ideology of those who are controlling culture to an extent. It's kind of like a suicide bomber. Obviously that idiot is not going to get 40 vigins in heaven, but they they believe they are and will act on their beliefs. The point is that we have social engineers that can influence our culture, and most people just think that evolution of culture happens by chance is not controlled, when in fact it's being manipulated, but at the same time not fully controlled, but directed towards a goal which isn't always achieved.
Most of what they have planned has become true, although I didn't post 90% of the presentation, but when you really start looking at it, it actually makes a lot more sense for people to manipulate a democratically controlled government because to allow people to come to the wrong conclusions would be irresponsible from their perspective.
(February 19, 2016 at 6:35 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Wow. You have gone directly to full on, bat-shit crazy mode, haven't you?
Not at all. They are the ones that have gone bat shit crazy. All I did was quote from the audio of the presentation from 1969. Those are not my words. Keep in mind that is just ideology of those who are controlling culture to an extent. It's kind of like a suicide bomber. Obviously that idiot is not going to get 40 vigins in heaven, but they they believe they are and will act on their beliefs. The point is that we have social engineers that can influence our culture, and most people just think that evolution of culture happens by chance is not controlled, when in fact it's being manipulated, but at the same time not fully controlled, but directed towards a goal which isn't always achieved.
Most of what they have planned has become true, although I didn't post 90% of the presentation, but when you really start looking at it, it actually makes a lot more sense for people to manipulate a democratically controlled government because to allow people to come to the wrong conclusions would be irresponsible from their perspective.
In your own words, and without use of youtube, can you tell us who these manipulators are? And please don't forget to back up your sources... and I mean really back them up. Forget about blogs and known conspiracy sites; give us something we can actually chew on. You think there's some faction of "social engineers"? Show us. And don't forget to tell us what their agenda is/are and show us how exactly this group is working together to further their specific goals; back those up too, while you're at it.
Please don't move the goalposts again. It would be much appreciated if you would address what I've actually asked.
(February 19, 2016 at 6:42 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: Not at all. They are the ones that have gone bat shit crazy. All I did was quote from the audio of the presentation from 1969. Those are not my words. Keep in mind that is just ideology of those who are controlling culture to an extent. It's kind of like a suicide bomber. Obviously that idiot is not going to get 40 vigins in heaven, but they they believe they are and will act on their beliefs. The point is that we have social engineers that can influence our culture, and most people just think that evolution of culture happens by chance is not controlled, when in fact it's being manipulated, but at the same time not fully controlled, but directed towards a goal which isn't always achieved.
Most of what they have planned has become true, although I didn't post 90% of the presentation, but when you really start looking at it, it actually makes a lot more sense for people to manipulate a democratically controlled government because to allow people to come to the wrong conclusions would be irresponsible from their perspective.
In your own words, and without use of youtube, can you tell us who these manipulators are? And please don't forget to back up your sources... and I mean really back them up. Forget about blogs and known conspiracy sites; give us something we can actually chew on. You think there's some faction of "social engineers"? Show us. And don't forget to tell us what their agenda is/are and show us how exactly this group is working together to further their specific goals; back those up too, while you're at it.
Please don't move the goalposts again. It would be much appreciated if you would address what I've actually asked.
Sure I can and will pull some names together with sources, but in the end you have to ask yourself why you are asking me, and why you don't know about this already. The answer of course is because social engineering by sociologists and psychologists at the national security level is not promoted to the masses. We are the enemy, and refereed to as the dumb masses, cattle, parasites, expendables, inferior, etc. You need to start to understand the social strata that affects us, and the reason why secrets are kept from the poor but given to the elite of our society. To think that science provides equal information to all people of the world is straight up ignorance, but that's what I used to think myself. Once you start understanding the elite ideology, from their perspective, whether it's right or wrong, you will start to understand how to control societies. This is something that goes back through thousands of years of history, and nothing new, but it's esoteric and only meant for the those in control, not those who are ruled. The key thing in modern times is to convince people they are not ruled.
(February 19, 2016 at 7:09 pm)The_Empress Wrote: In your own words, and without use of youtube, can you tell us who these manipulators are? And please don't forget to back up your sources... and I mean really back them up. Forget about blogs and known conspiracy sites; give us something we can actually chew on. You think there's some faction of "social engineers"? Show us. And don't forget to tell us what their agenda is/are and show us how exactly this group is working together to further their specific goals; back those up too, while you're at it.
Please don't move the goalposts again. It would be much appreciated if you would address what I've actually asked.
Sure I can and will pull some names together with sources,
Please do.
Quote:but in the end you have to ask yourself why you are asking me, and why you don't know about this already. The answer of course is because social engineering by sociologists and psychologists at the national security level is not promoted to the masses.
"Of course"?? Obviously not "of course". You have a ton of people on just this forum who have no idea what you're talking about. Who are these sociologists and psychologists? And, again, assertions are not evidence. Neither are conspiracy blogs.
Quote:We are the enemy, and refereed to as the dumb masses, cattle, parasites, expendables, inferior, etc.
Prove it.
Quote:You need to start to understand the social strata that affects us, and the reason why secrets are kept from the poor but given to the elite of our society.
How do you know my family is not part of "the elite"? And what secrets and for what reasons? You keep asserting all of this in a haze of, "I'm in the know and you aren't", but you have yet to actually talk about anything of actual substance.
Quote:To think that science provides equal information to all people of the world is straight up ignorance,
Why? What science is not being "provide[d]'?
Quote:but that's what I used to think myself. Once you start understanding the elite ideology, from their perspective, whether it's right or wrong, you will start to understand how to control societies.
What, specifically, is this "elite ideology" you keep asserting? And how do you know I'm not part of it?
Quote:This is something that goes back through thousands of years of history, and nothing new, but it's esoteric and only meant for the those in control, not those who are ruled. The key thing in modern times is to convince people they are not ruled.
February 19, 2016 at 8:10 pm (This post was last modified: February 19, 2016 at 8:11 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 19, 2016 at 7:22 pm)scoobysnack Wrote:
(February 19, 2016 at 7:09 pm)The_Empress Wrote: In your own words, and without use of youtube, can you tell us who these manipulators are? And please don't forget to back up your sources... and I mean really back them up. Forget about blogs and known conspiracy sites; give us something we can actually chew on. You think there's some faction of "social engineers"? Show us. And don't forget to tell us what their agenda is/are and show us how exactly this group is working together to further their specific goals; back those up too, while you're at it.
Please don't move the goalposts again. It would be much appreciated if you would address what I've actually asked.
Sure I can and will pull some names together with sources, but in the end you have to ask yourself why you are asking me, and why you don't know about this already. The answer of course is because social engineering by sociologists and psychologists at the national security level is not promoted to the masses. We are the enemy, and refereed to as the dumb masses, cattle, parasites, expendables, inferior, etc. You need to start to understand the social strata that affects us, and the reason why secrets are kept from the poor but given to the elite of our society. To think that science provides equal information to all people of the world is straight up ignorance, but that's what I used to think myself. Once you start understanding the elite ideology, from their perspective, whether it's right or wrong, you will start to understand how to control societies. This is something that goes back through thousands of years of history, and nothing new, but it's esoteric and only meant for the those in control, not those who are ruled. The key thing in modern times is to convince people they are not ruled.
[Regarding my added emphasis] Pretty sure she asked you not to move the goalposts.
Also, I note the lack of a single cited source when she specifically asked you for that much.
(February 19, 2016 at 8:11 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Scoobs, don't you find it odd that no other believers here applaud any of your posts? You're so far gone that even they run.
Maybe you should start your own version of "Heaven's Gate". I understand it worked very well for them.
