Amusing Response to Human Depopulation

[kirolak]

There is a locally available sorghum based cereal which is really cheap, aimed at being affordable by the "poor"; I love the taste but there is an artificial sweetener among the ingredients. I duly called the manufacturer about that & had this conversation:

Me: Can you tell me why there is an artificial sweetener in your product? It's known to be very bad for the health - it can cause all sorts of nasty things, just google it & you'll see what I mean. I'd like to speak to someone in charge about having it removed.

Customer Care Person: OK. I'll ask someone to call you to explain why we need to put it in the product.

Me: No, that's pointless - there CAN be no acceptable explanation, it's a poison, & I won't use the product until you remove it, in fact I'll post it to my Facebook page & alert others about it.

C C Person: We put it in the cereal to make it sweet (!)

Me: Clearly, but there is also sugar in the product, there is no need for Aspartame. There are studies proving it is actually a poison.

CC Person: It's part of our agenda

Me: Hahaha, are you people supporting the human depopulation agenda, then?

CC Person: Oh yes, we do whatever we can.

I can only assume she didn't know what the depopulation agenda is??

[cuitlahuac]

In fact, I know people with kids that give the same answer: "We are too many". They might not know what the depopulation agenda is, but they support it anyways.

[Amanda]

Could it be that some people are completely and utterly mind controlled and brain washed? I too have contacted a food supplier with questions about whether their product was GMO based - and - I did not get a satisfactory answer. The food was lecithin and I no longer use it. Human depopulation is a fragile subject - while we may in fact have too many people on the planet - how do we know that for sure. I used to wonder about the population of our beautiful planet but I have read articles over the years that have suggested this; when everyone has enough and does not have to stress people actually have fewer Children.

It is hard to say whether we are overpopulated or not - we have never had every single person on the earth living in peace and prosperity - so we don't know. All I know is that we have plenty for everyone if governments did not waste foodstuffs that does not sell for export et cetera. People certainly do not need to be poisoned via their food. Sometimes I wonder whether we are now addicted to food. So many are well fed while many have nothing and not even access to water. Maybe food is just another aspect of the control mechanisms that are currently in place.

Much Peace - Amanda

[Matt P]

Posted by cuitlahuac (here)
In fact, I know people with kids that give the same answer: "We are too many". They might not know what the depopulation agenda is, but they support it anyways.

This is what propaganda creates. People believe our planet is overpopulated and support depopulation, feeling that means someone BESIDES themselves. "Oh, they must be talking about those people in Africa or Asia."

And, to Amanda: This is a great point. We are only told there are 7+ billion people on the planet. We can't know it or see it for sure and we surely haven't tried living in peace in abundance yet. Think about it like this. There are 2.3 billion acres of land in the United States alone. This is enough land that you could fit 3 people per acre and fit every man, woman and child on the planet just in this one country. With space for a permaculture garden feeding those 3 people on every acre. Obviously this is an exaggerated example but it could be done and have the entire rest of the land mass of the planet empty. So, knowing that so many millions of people gather in cities, that should give you a picture of how much empty land is out there.

There is no question there is enough for everyone. Population increases are a RESPONSE to food availability, not the other way around. There is also no question food is addictive. That's the point of many of those nasty chemicals put in there. And control, too. Control and profits. Take sodas as the perfect example. Even without aspartame. There's lots of salt, which makes you thirsty. There's lot of sugar to hide the salt and addict you. There's caffeine, which makes you pee and also addicts you. One would think a soda is designed to quench your thirst, which is how they are marketed, but they are actually designed to make you thirsty, make you addicted and keep you spending money. And this is just one product. This same strategy is found throughout the food industry.

Matt

[Hervé]

Posted by mpennery (here)
[...]

Population increases are a RESPONSE to food availability, not the other way around.

[...]

Matt

Actually, that's disproved from empirical data and it seems that the rational followed is that, when faced with a threat of extinction, human groups will start reproducing like mad for a chance to survive as a species:

Dirty Methods are Not Needed for Population Control

[Lifebringer]

Heartless Nazi agenda types answering the phone, are programmed to "always tell the truth" if the right question is posed. I had a phone person in charge at Social Security "change my contact number" when I requested a supervisor, because they stopped my benefits for someone's overpay at a different address. When I called back and got someone else, they helped me, then asked "can we contact you at this number, and he called it off." Just that quick, this dyk changed my federal contact number which has to be illegal. I know its a recorded phone call, so if they tried to contact me for the rude behavior, they wouldn't have been able to reach me. However in this day and age, there is the "e-mail" bust to the top, and most certainly I told them of the belligerent behavior of "our representatives of OUR trust/money paid in for decades plus interest."

Just spread the word, and when the profits drop in the toilet, they'll figure it's about using toxins in our food sources to our families.
Best way to hit them is in their pocket. There's no market for poison, disrespect, or deceitful behavior, so their goose is cooked business wise, until the "do unto others, as they would have others, do unto them."

[Lifebringer]

"The same strategy is found throughout the food industry"

"TRICKS OF THE TRADE." LOL

That's where that saying comes from, you know. Blatant and ruthless.

[Lifebringer]

Lecithin is a natural fat melter. Used in the Asian diet and when I was overweight, added it to melt the fat that had been there for years. I believe I didn't have to change anything but white bread, fatty meats, and increase of fish and veggies. More veggies than starch and grains. It worked, stomach fat came off and muscles toned, cellulite, all but disappeared. Didn't bother me and that was 23 years ago. Just saying some of the corporations are catching on to what works naturally, and they are finally jumping on the band wagon, but you can't trust them because they use other little stuff, that does other stuff under your nose. Best to go to health food store, not box stores, and order or purchase it there.
PS My eldest daughter when we first came south, loved the rich biscuits so much, in two months from 4th of July, until end of Aug back to school went from a 11-12 to a 22 and cried, so I gave her some and she's fine also. In fact, she likes the Asian diet more than Western diets loaded w/fats/chemicals/pesticides and petro fuel products.

[Matt P]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by mpennery (here)
[...]

Population increases are a RESPONSE to food availability, not the other way around.

[...]

Matt

Actually, that's disproved from empirical data and it seems that the rational followed is that, when faced with a threat of extinction, human groups will start reproducing like mad for a chance to survive as a species:

Dirty Methods are Not Needed for Population Control

I happen to disagree but that's cool. There's a lot of things "proven" that aren't so. Though I'm not sure how threat of extinction and our reaction to it is relevant here. I was saying population increases as a consequence of greater and more efficient food production (as opposed to greater and more efficient food production being a response to increased population). Animals without food don't have increased numbers of babies. Animals with lots of food do. I was happy to check out your link but it didn't work. Care to try again?

Matt

[gittarpikk]

Posted by mpennery (here)

Posted by cuitlahuac (here)
In fact, I know people with kids that give the same answer: "We are too many". They might not know what the depopulation agenda is, but they support it anyways.

There are 2.3 billion acres of land in the United States alone. This is enough land that you could fit 3 people per acre and fit every man, woman and child on the planet just in this one country.

Matt

Just make sure my 'space' is not on top of a snowy mountain or in the middle of the desert...


.....who me....picky.... naah.!

[Matt P]

Posted by gittarpikk (here)

Posted by mpennery (here)

Posted by cuitlahuac (here)
In fact, I know people with kids that give the same answer: "We are too many". They might not know what the depopulation agenda is, but they support it anyways.

There are 2.3 billion acres of land in the United States alone. This is enough land that you could fit 3 people per acre and fit every man, woman and child on the planet just in this one country.

Matt

Just make sure my 'space' is not on top of a snowy mountain or in the middle of the desert...


.....who me....picky.... naah.!

Ha! Exactly.
Like I said, an exaggerated example....

[Hervé]

Posted by mpennery (here)
[...]

... I was happy to check out your link but it didn't work. Care to try again?

Matt

Fixed for now: Dirty Methods are Not Needed for Population Control

[blufire]

There is no big scary depopulation conspiracy going on with this cereal.

Kirolak you mentioned this was a really cheap cereal that was affordable for the ‘poor’. It is affordable for the poor because they DO use artificial sweetener. Artificial sugars are MUCH cheaper to produce other than using pure cane sugar, honey or other natural sugar. At least they do add sorghum which supplies natural source of iron and other minerals.

If they used real natural sugar and other premium ingredients then the ‘poor’ could no longer afford it. Then there would be an outcry that they are being starved because they can’t afford food and ‘depopulated’ in this manner as well.

I see such a vicious maddening circle with these types of topics.

So what should these companies do? At least there are options to what the public buys.

I am always amazed at what poor people buy at the grocery store and especially those on food stamps and welfare. Did you know food stamps can be used to purchase $4.00 energy drinks? (Monsters, Red Bull and such) . . . . . . amazing and what is more amazing is they buy these over priced drinks.

There are so many affordable options for so many good healthy foods at the grocery stores. . . . . food that is not GMO or at least relatively low in that category. People just refuse to buy these (for the most part) because it actually requires some effort to prepare and cook with these foods.

Instead of expensive sugary cereals, how about oatmeal, the kind that actually needs to be cooked for about 20 minutes (not instant) add a few raisins for extra vitamins and minerals, sweeten with honey or raw brown sugar. If you bought all these ingredients (for the oatmeal) it would provide far more servings for breakfast than one box of high priced, sugary, over-processed cereal. The oatmeal would be much healthier and stick with you longer throughout the day as well.

As far as the planet being overpopulated . . . . yep, sure is. This is one of the reasons why companies have to use mass produced, cheap artificial sweeteners and ingredients just to fill peoples’ tummies.

Our ability to farm enough food to feed the world’s population is diminishing rapidly because of the planet wide climate change and the exponential growth of humanity . . . . and it is getting worse . . . .you think a can of green beans (the cheap ones) costing $1.25 is bad now? What for a couple more months.

I will wait now for the forty eleven hundred posts regurgitating the ‘planted’ info on what I just said is wrong and uncompassionate.

[Flash]

you almost all seeem to get is wrong in this thread and i do Wonder why

It is not more expensive to produce non GMO food with mixed cultures to be used to avoid / replace pesticides. Some big farmers of bio foods in the US are claiming this.

Also, it has been scientifically proven, with many research, that when a population is well fed, they decrease the number of children per household, contrarily to dogs or cats - we are not dogs and cats so we can plan how many children we will have. Many countries culturally have more children because half will be dead once the parents are in old age, and the children will have to take the responsibility of the parents, children are an old age insurance.

I will have to dig the research again it seem, research that was prominent on Avalon just 2 years ago.

There is no other excuse for bad food than corporations and elite's greed, and not other excuse for population culling than Elite's greed and absolute control.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

HE WHO CONTOLS FOOD CONTROLS THE WORLD - THIS VIDEO IS A MUST A MUST LISTEN

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RbvGeT_H5Hc

[blufire]

Flash the grocery stores have plenty of food in them that is not GMO and very healthy . . . . people just won’t buy those products anymore.

They prefer the fancy food in fancy boxes that require little to no preparation . . . . just open a box or bag and eat it. . . . and laziness pure and simple.

Does anyone cook from scratch anymore?

We don’t even have to go down the tired same planted info of GMO . . . .we can debate as we always have on PA and come to the same impasse.

I have purposely gone to grocery stores to determine if there is food that is healthy and non-gmo and affordable to purchase and there is!! Absolutely no doubt about it . . .everyone can do the same thing . . go take a good hard look at the foods in the grocery stores.

He who controls the food controls the world???? Each and every one of us has complete and total control of what we put in that grocery cart. Each and every one of us has full and total responsibility of what we put in our mouths . . . . . I have no one in my house standing over me forcing me to eat GMO food and no one else does either


Take responsibility and control of your own life and choose wisely.

[kirolak]

Actually, I was posting this because I thought the PR person's response was really funny; my own query about their support for the human population agenda was actually a joke, but she did not get it. . . . . I seem to have opened a can of worms!

[Flash]

Now, very interesting, population health versus population wealth, 4 minutes, easy to understand - a prerequesite understand population growth and slow down in growth

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

Here is why the discrepancies between poor and rich, and extremely rich, the elite, to understand what they are looking for

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QpdyCJi3Ib4

the third video is about the world population, correlating small families and long lifes, versus large families and short lifes - with long life because of better income you have less children

Here later he is also talking about equality in the world and the population, regional and global with a very good detail analysis of money, child survival and population

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

Now in the next video the global population per say

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

THE MESSAGE IS EXTREMELY CLEAR: WE CANNOT KEEP HAVING 2 BILLION POOR PEOPLE BECAUSE WE THEN WILL KEEP HAVING POPULATION GROWTH - GET THEM OUT OF POVERTY, INCREASE CHILDREN SURVIVAL RATE, POPULATION GROWTH STOPS



Fin

[blufire]

THE MESSAGE IS EXTREMELY CLEAR: WE CANNOT KEEP HAVING 2 BILLION POOR PEOPLE BECAUSE WE THEN WILL KEEP HAVING POPULATION GROWTH - GET THEM OUT OF POVERTY, INCREASE CHILDREN SURVIVAL RATE, POPULATION GROWTH STOPS

We need a new definition of the term “poor” . . . . .

Are these 2 billion (out of 7 billion plant wide population) living in urban settings or in rural country side?

People who live in the rural countryside who farm and raise the majority of their food are not ‘poor’ and live good lives, but by current definition they are incredibly poor and poverty stricken.
Are these 2 billion ‘poor’ because they don’t have cars, computers, toys?

The above statement is a misnomer. Population growth will in no way stop and is illogical to think otherwise even if this statement was true and doable . . . . To stop population growth would mean no one could have any children AT ALL or at least only children to ‘replace’ the death rate . . . .who decides that?

The population growth will continue to rapidly and exponentially expand until we hit critical mass and implode . . . . this has happened many times before in past civilizations and will continue with future civilizations.

Implode . . . mass die off . . . . planet heals . . . growth begins again . . . it is the CYCLE OF LIFE and nothing else.


. . . . and meanwhile, before the implosion, companies and countries will struggle to feed this rapidly growing population and will struggle further with the rapid climate change that is making production of food even more difficult . . . GMO and organic.

[doodah]

I will step in in support of mpennery here. Grow your own food for a season and live off of what you grow. If you do this, you will easily see that our world population is so large because we have a year-round food distribution system. If you live off of what is local in your area, and you live where there is real winter, you do not have oranges, tomatoes, fresh greens, or hardly any food at all unless you have grown and preserved lots of food to get you through the winter. It is easy to see why people would starve during the winter; also why meat becomes very important during the winter -- because there is nothing growing in the ground. If food supplies are local, smaller populations have a better chance of making it through the winter; by having year-round food distribution, what would have been small populations are now able to be large populations.

It is true that people may be healthier today because of having a year-round food distribution system that keeps fresh fruits and vegetables available every single day in climates that would not have a natural abundance of those things. But this a modern convenience largely dependent upon petroleum for shipping things all over the world. And there you have another negative - petroleum - the single most widespread poison on the planet.

Posted by mpennery (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by mpennery (here)
[...]

Population increases are a RESPONSE to food availability, not the other way around.

[...]

Matt

Actually, that's disproved from empirical data and it seems that the rational followed is that, when faced with a threat of extinction, human groups will start reproducing like mad for a chance to survive as a species:

Dirty Methods are Not Needed for Population Control

I happen to disagree but that's cool. There's a lot of things "proven" that aren't so. Though I'm not sure how threat of extinction and our reaction to it is relevant here. I was saying population increases as a consequence of greater and more efficient food production (as opposed to greater and more efficient food production being a response to increased population). Animals without food don't have increased numbers of babies. Animals with lots of food do. I was happy to check out your link but it didn't work. Care to try again?

Matt

[MargueriteBee]

Now that I am older I am glad I didnt have kids. I just figured we had already multiplied and filled the earth so I didnt need to.