Are you ready for a world without antibiotics?

lurker · Post by **lurker** » 13 Aug 2010, 00:46

beria you post alot of interesting stuff but this seems to be verging into the crazy conspiracy theory stuff

RenewableCandy makes a good point why it wouldn't be effective?

I think it more likely any biological weapons would target less genetically diverse things like monoculture crops such as rice?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 13 Aug 2010, 01:35

Lord Beria3 wrote:I think circles around Prince Philip ......

What's he done to deserve this mud slinging? Is it because he made a joke about slitty eyes or that he drives horse drawn carriages in his spare time? He's obviously planning for a time without cars!

Should we be worried more about Beria3 now he has promoted himself to Lord Beria3? Showing signs of grandeur now he's been here for a bit.

Aren't most Europeans from the same ethnic group as many Indians, i.e. Caucasian?

The rich owe there richness to the billions of people who buy stuff and scurry around like ants doing their bidding, so why would they want to spoil the party by killing off their wage slaves? In a world with a very depleted population they would find it much harder to control those who are left and the likelyhood of BAU carrying on after such a calamity would be very low.

The *anking system would collapse as the debt of the dead was written off and money, and their wealth, would go with it. The industrial system would probably follow on after the *anking system as most of our raw materials come from the third world. Without all those wage slaves, who would dig the stuff out of the ground?

This thread is worthy of LATOC, from what I've heard of that site.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 13 Aug 2010, 08:16

lurker wrote:beria you.....seem.....to be verging....crazy

Lurker, I'm inclined to agree.

( If you'll forgive the radical editing of your original post )

featherstick · Post by **featherstick** » 13 Aug 2010, 08:58

Back in my LSE days I went to a lecture with a warfare specialist who spoke about some of the future developments in warfare. He noted there were two trends, mostly driven by the US military.

The first was the upgrade of current conventional delivery systems. For instance aircraft carrier battle groups that never have to dock, or satellite-borne missile systems which would more-or-less just need to be a lump of metal chucked out of a satellite - by the time it reached earth, its kinetic energy would be devastating.

The second trend is for just the sort of munitions that have been discussed in this thread. Language-specific munitions such as that will only explode when they "hear" Pashtun or Dari, geno-specific munitions that can target specific family members. These could be active or passive, in some instance deployed to deny whole areas to people speaking the wrong language.

He was categorical that enormous amounts of resources were being deployed on the research and development of these weapons.

I've just spent a few minutes trying to remember who this specialist was - it was a fat little hyperactive bloke from King's College Defence Studies dept, but he's not on their staff list now.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 13 Aug 2010, 10:47

I understand that this is a crazy topic to most normal people, but if the Project for the New American Century explicitly mentions gene-specifiic biological warfare as a key future trend in US national strategy, i think we should take notice!

Regarding Prince Philip, he is a regular attendee of Bildersburg meetings, in fact his close friend (when he was alive), Prince Bernhard (former SS officer during the war - might give you a hint of his political sympathaies...) was key in setting up the Club.

Bilderberg regulars include Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller (of JP Morgan's International Council), Nelson Rockefeller, Prince Philip of Great Britain, Robert McNamara (J F Kennedy's secretary of defense and former president of the World Bank), Margaret Thatcher, former French president (and main redactor of the EU constitution) Valery Giscard D'Estaing, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan. The Rothschild family has hosted many Bilderbergs. In 1962 and 1973, on the island resort of Saltsjobaden, Sweden, the hosts were the Wallenberg banking family.

This is a picture of Bernhard - one of Philips closet collaberators in the post-war international scene - they both were closely involved in WWF.

Prince Philip has publiclly mentioned a number of times he desire to see a major depopulation of the world.

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.

The popular image of the Royal Consort is of a bumbling, gaffe prone fool, there is certainly a strong sense of truth to this, but the aristocratic elements who have frequented the meetings in the past do have some financial clout. Queen Beatrix, a yearly attendee of Bildersburg meetings, still has financial stake within Royal Dutch Shell, one of the Seven Sisters.

behind-the-scenes, the interlocked aristocratic families of Europe stick together and utlilise their formable networks to push their particular idealogy, a kind of reactionary environmentalism combined with neoliberalism.

Comp_Lex · Post by **Comp_Lex** » 13 Aug 2010, 11:18

Beria, you have to be very careful with these accusations and insinuations. I have personally banned a person on our local PO forum for continuously spewing out conspiracy theories and scaring people away.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 13 Aug 2010, 11:25

Well, everything i've mentioned is on the public record... the PNAC report... Prince Philips public comments on overpopulation and his desire to see it reduced... the scientific warnings on the potential of gene-specific weapons... its all there, if you want to stick your head in the sand fine, don't comment on this thread.

This is the big picture

Excluding a energy miracle, once we have used up the bulk of the oil and gas reserves, we will have no chance of sustaining a global population at these levels - the question is will the die-off be natural e.g. pandemic, famine or will there be manmade intervention and if so, can civilisation survive the transition?

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 13 Aug 2010, 11:30

Lord Beria3 wrote:Well, everything i've mentioned is on the public record... the PNAC report... Prince Philips public comments on overpopulation and his desire to see it reduced... the scientific warnings on the potential of gene-specific weapons... its all there, if you want to stick your head in the sand fine, don't comment on this thread.

In that case, could you point me to the official list of Bilderberg members, their roles in the group, and where they have publicised their "reactionary environmentalism combined with neoliberalism"?

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 13 Aug 2010, 11:51

hers a list of Bildersberg participants;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bi ... rticipants

Here you find the official list from 2010 from the Clubs offical website.

http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/parti ... _2010.html

In regard to 'reactionary enviromentalism' i was referring to Prince Philip and the ariistocratic elements primarily, the rest of the Bildersberg attendees come from banking/corporate backgrounds - e.g. signed up subsribers to the neoliberalism.

Here is a link to some of Prince Philips statesments regarding the envonment; leading themes over population, finite resources etc

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Phi ... _Edinburgh

I consider him reactionary, along with his son, because they are massive landowners, show no sign of any radical/progressive views and their particular form of enviromentalism; e.g. the end of materialism, conservation would inevtably impoverish the majority of people.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 13 Aug 2010, 11:56

They have lists of bilderberger attendees I'm not sure they have the official list of Bilderberg members, their roles in the group.
For many years the group had no publicity at all wasn't mentioned anywhere.

If you get away from individual groups involved and just think about die-off or resource depletion yup there may well be some sort of depopulation plan or one may crop up .

My guess is that the sort of people who end up running country's or world financial systems are most likely pretty ruthless or have ruthless people attached to them

Comp_Lex · Post by **Comp_Lex** » 13 Aug 2010, 12:01

These depopulation plans will be executed in one way or another. Mother Nature can execute these plans as well, she doesn't need Bilderbergers for that.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 13 Aug 2010, 12:12

Lord Beria3 wrote:I consider him reactionary, along with his son, because they are massive landowners, show no sign of any radical/progressive views and their particular form of enviromentalism; e.g. the end of materialism, conservation would inevtably impoverish the majority of people.

You obviously have no idea of the type of work the Prince's Trust does or the type of people, the young and poor, it works with. Google Prince's Trust and find out.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 13 Aug 2010, 12:34

These depopulation plans will be executed in one way or another. Mother Nature can execute these plans as well, she doesn't need Bilderbergers for that.

Agreed, in the long run, we'll all dead...

Regarding the Princes work, i do admire it, a reactionary isn't a bad person, just somebody who prefers the old ways.

The term reactionary refers to viewpoints that seek to return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society

In fact, I might be considered a reactionary, although i my case, i don't there is a alternative, but I admire Charles general outlook on life.

Comp_Lex · Post by **Comp_Lex** » 13 Aug 2010, 12:45

Another question: where do they get the resources for warfare and their depopulation plans in the future?

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 13 Aug 2010, 15:03

featherstick wrote: The first was the upgrade of current conventional delivery systems. For instance aircraft carrier battle groups that never have to dock, or satellite-borne missile systems which would more-or-less just need to be a lump of metal chucked out of a satellite - by the time it reached earth, its kinetic energy would be devastating.

Based on current technology, not too difficult to do, especially the mass drivers. Highest probability of implementation.

The second trend is for just the sort of munitions that have been discussed in this thread. Language-specific munitions such as that will only explode when they "hear" Pashtun or Dari, geno-specific munitions that can target specific family members. These could be active or passive, in some instance deployed to deny whole areas to people speaking the wrong language.

He was categorical that enormous amounts of resources were being deployed on the research and development of these weapons.

Far too expensive when you can achieve the same, or similar results, with a nuclear weapon. It's projects like these that will be the first to be scrapped as the military budgets are constrained and practical solutions are sought. Genotype specific weapons, and language specific weapons, are the stuff of science fiction.

A genetic weapon targeted to a particular ethnic group is so unlikely as to be impossible. Reasons:

1) There are few known gene variants that are ONLY present in particular ethnic groups.
2) Targeting these DNA stretches or the proteins produced would be extremely difficult, and unlikely to kill the desired numbers of people because of inter-group variation.
3) It would be impossible in a large, diverse group like the 300+ million Arabs, for example, who run the gamut from previously Hellenized Levantine Arabs to half-sub-Saharan African Egyptians/Sudanese to completely mixed-up Yemeni Arabs (who probably have Jewish, East African, Indian and Arab genes) to Moroccan Berbers.

Physics is, relatively, straight forward and clean (unless delving into the sub-atomic level and then it all gets a bit weird). Biology is rather messy and quickly gets complicated.