Sunday, June 26, 2011

Let's Tie A Couple of Stories Together - part ii

Let me tie Wednesday and Saturday together.

As I said Wednesday's post, it's all about UN Agenda 21, and allowing the flooding of wide tracts of the US supports that idea.  Trevor Loudon at New Zeal has a great post to help you get up to speed on the UN's Agenda 21.   The implications of this plan make Soylent Green or any of the worst, most dystopian-future movies look like Mary Poppins (the most relentlessly optimistic, happy movie I can think of).  To begin with, let's look at a map.  Trevor has a small version, so I went and found one that's readable if you click on it:
If this UN plan goes into effect, every area in red will be "forbidden zone" for humans. Every area in yellow will be "highly regulated".  I assume that means you will only be allowed there with permits and strict time limits - not to live there.  Humans will basically be allowed to live only in densely packed urban areas, shown as black dots.  Think all of the worst places in America: Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, DC... you get the idea. 

Central to the plan is the idea of being carbon neutral.  That's right, "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever they call it this week, is the basis for mass murder on a scale that Mao, Pol Pot, or Hitler could never aspire to.  You see, to quote from this piece at End of The American Dream, the population must be reduced:
  • CNN Founder Ted Turner: "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
  • Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: "My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world."
  • Maurice Strong: "Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Gee, the moderate guy only wants to kill off more than 95% of the human race.  See the current world population is around 7 billion people.  For Dave Foreman, 100 million out of 7 billion is 100 out of 7000 or 1.4 %.  At 300 million, Ted Turner would generously let 4.3% live.

Around 20 years ago, I heard that the entire population of the world would fit in Jacksonville, Florida, without resorting to vertical high rise buildings.  It would be austere, but they would fit.  I found a the area of the city (885 square miles), ran the calculation, and it worked.  Even today, you still could fit every man woman and child in the world in the area of Jacksonville, but each person would only get 3.5 square feet, so it would pretty much be shoulder to shoulder.  According to the Wiki, the area of the state of Florida is 65,755 square miles.  Given the 7 billion people in the world, if you spread them evenly across the state, every person in the world would get 261.9 square feet.  Not a big room (unless you're in NYC), and small by US standards, but generous compared to much of the world.  Of course, the infrastructure would take room, so you'd probably need to spread them out, but I suspect everyone in the world would fit comfortably in the southeastern US.  And we need to kill off 95% of them because they're taking up too many resources? 

John P. Holdren, Barack Obama's top science advisor, co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience" back in 1977 in which he actually advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, a one world government and a global police force to enforce population control.
source for that and this:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

So the Fed.gov, acting under the Agenda 21 of the UN, wants to forcibly - at gunpoint, I assume - abort your babies, put sterilants in the drinking water, move you to a city center where you can be stacked up like cordwood, and "live" where every move you make, every thing you eat, every decision you make, is made for you by the state.  If you're one of the few percent who aren't killed off.  All in the name of the skankiest, most corrupt "science" humans have ever put on paper (pretty good summary).   It's pretty damned obvious why they don't want us armed, isn't it?

(Edit: 1712 forgot to label the post)

5 comments:

BS Footprint said...

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: though some of us still keep and bear arms, for the most part we've been thoroughly disarmed.

Spiritually, morally, philosophically.

Our will to fight has been stripped from us by decades of P.C. propaganda, public 'education', constant 'amusement', and government benefits.

Bread and circuses is the order of the day.

I've always felt like a 'stranger in a strange land', and thanks to the interwebz, I see that I'm not the only one.

I'm beginning to understand the three percenter thing. Only I suspect it's closer to one percent...

Graybeard said...

BS - that's deep in a lot of ways.

Take the story about the 90-something grandma publicly humiliated by the TSA. It's wrong, it won't stop attacks, and it's got to be stopped, I think we all agree. But Take Tam's stand at Allahu Akhbar.

So what do you do? Do you stand up and fight the TSA? If you do, at a minimum, grandma doesn't get where she's going and you're going to "holding". Is it so grandma gets some lifesaving treatment? If you really fight the TSA, one of you is going to jail, or going down. How do you fight the TSA? If you shoot, you're dead, and probably grandma and anyone else traveling with you.

And that sentiment - ok, I know it's wrong, but what do I do? - seems to be what every commenter is saying.

BS Footprint said...

I think the only reasonable thing we can do right now is to hope things will get bad enough so that even the middle-of-the-road J6P gets it. But not so bad that we're screwed beyond recovery. Maybe then we can start moving away from the abyss we seem to be rushing towards...

Because, you see, most people are still too comfortable. Most people see government as their friend, their helper, their savior. Very few seem to understand, as Washington is reported to have said, that "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master" (true enough regardless of whether G. Washington ever uttered those words).

Though it seems 'discomfort' is spreading, accelerating, uncomfortable truths are starting to leak out. The Internet seems to be helping spread the truth about abuses of power, fraud, financial fun and games...

Frankly, I'm surprised at some of the stuff I see on TV and some of the 'mainstream' news sites on the web lately - things I *used* to talk about 15+ years ago; things that would cause my cow-workers to shake their heads and wonder if (er... conclude that) I was out of my mind. (Perhaps I was. But I digress.) Perhaps I was just ahead of my time.

So now I see stuff on Fox News (and not just Glenn Beck) that used to be considered 'whacko' material. I read stories on MarketWatch.com and other 'respectable' sites reminiscent of what used to be considered 'paranoid conspiracy underground fringe' material.

Perhaps 'average' people are waking up, though slowly -- it may be gaining momentum.

Tipping points and all that.

Even so, I suspect that we are massively outnumbered by the "FSA" (Free Sh*t Army, look it up) -- when and if things go bad, the FSA will hold sway (being the noisiest mob, after all) and things will go from bad to worse. That's what I think we're up against.

I hope I'm wrong.

Hang in there. I'd rather live in interesting times than boring ones. :D

BS Footprint said...

Oh, and regarding 'fighting' - there are lots of ways to 'fight' the TSA (for example).

My way of fighting the TSA: I refuse to fly. With _one_ exception since 9/11. It's a silent protest (mostly). But I withhold my money from businesses (airlines) who have gotten in bed with would-be tyrants. Screw 'em, I'll drive. Or telecommute.

I know not everyone can do it that way. Those who must fly can raise objections at every step of the process.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to withdraw your support for the things you find most repugnant.

That's what I'm doing. If that makes me the enemy, then so be it.

Graybeard said...

I don't know, boring is okay. Allows us to work on other things.

I have restricted my flying since the scanners and enhanced pat downs all started, and been sent on only one business trip. We turned a vacation where we previously would have flown somewhere into a road tour, and just drove. It was a fine way to spend a week or so. But it's not like I had to be somewhere.