UN ordered depopulation of 3 billion people by food malnutrition has started.

[herbal_hindsight]

UN ordered depopulation of 3 billion people by food malnutrition has started.

[Magicdirt]

Stuff like that is why I stopped buying New Dawn and Nexus magazines a few years back.

It's hard to deny it's happening the evidence is everywhere.

I go to the supermarket and see the shit that some people fill their trolleys with and wonder how they stay alive anyway. A lot of stuff in supermarkets can't really be considered food it's just empty calories with fuck all nutritional value.

It's like we've all been duped into eating flavoured cardboard with a bit of sugar for calories and chock full of chemical additives to make it seem edible.

Our perception of food has been manipulated to the point where many people are suspicious about real food, if it doesn't come out of a colourful box or packet many people won't look at it.

I know a girl who said "I won't touch anything organic - yuk" and she quivered with disgust as she thought about it. she lives off arnotts shapes KFC and Mcdonalds.

[Distracted]

With Codex Alimentarius in place organic isn't organic anyway due to the pesticides being forced upon the farmers :/

That article sure took a lot of liberties, but Codex Alimentarius is rather bad.

[Guest svarg26]

a list of foods to avoid.

http://www.fortcollinscwa.org/pages/fluoride.htm

when will people learn. it's a sad world we live in.

"I know a girl who said "I won't touch anything organic - yuk" and she quivered with disgust as she thought about it. she lives off arnotts shapes KFC and Mcdonalds."

most people i know say that very same thing, but about vegetables.

[botanika]

when will people learn. it's a sad world we live in.

 

When we are forced to - when being sustainable becomes a critical evolutionary trait. At the moment, in western civilisation, natural selection favors other traits such as technological innovation, war, money and religion.

Ultimately civilisations rise and fall based on racial homogenity.

Edited January 30, 2011 by botanika

[random]

Intrigueing and disturbing topic & link HH.

[botanika]

I reckon we need to start voting more women into power. More egalitarian = less people, more food.

[Sheather]

Food malnutrition would be the cheapest way to commit mass murder. Call it depopulation and be hailed a hero right?

Wtf, why so much fluoride? Is it our miracle drug now?

On another note, not sure if hoax...

[nothinghead]

Milk was the first to be targeted for eradication as milk is the most important life sustenance on Earth. It is packed full of vitamins, minerals and enzymes. All essential for keeping us healthy and alive. Next was eggs. Another very important food that keeps us very healthy and alive.

Yeah I don't know how anyone could get by without milk or eggs. No wonder all vegetarians look malnourished.

And swine flu? Didn't that kill less than 20,000 people? Even if you add on avian flu and SARS, it doesn't really get the UN on track to their supposed target of 3 billion.

Seriously people, "old Europe" has as much pasturised food on the shelf as anywhere else. It isn't a mass death conspiracy, it just makes overheads lower across the chain of supply and therefore increases profits.

[ThunderIdeal]

you're thinking of vegans. vegetarians can have dairy and ovo. i'm a vegetarian and if i look malnourished, it must be because everybody else is hideously overweight.

[bℓσωηG]

the fittest most muscular dude i ever seen eat only fruit and vege raw not cooked, kick any meat eaters ass... weve been lied to , u dont need meat, although i eat it i know i dont need it

[Sheather]

You don't need to, but you're only being lied to if you allow yourself to be. If you check out the science, meat is generally quite beneficial, so long as it's not processed or cooked in fats (blech). It's one of the easiest sources of fats and proteins (and iron) that you can get.

Having said this, it is pretty easy these days for vegetarians to get all of the benefits of meat from alternatives. (I hear mushrooms and beans are good?)

Does that fittest most muscular dude take dietary supplements? Creatine or protein shakes? I would think it likely but not definitely the case.

Milk was the first to be targeted for eradication as milk is the most important life sustenance on Earth.

Wut? Seriously? The most important life sustenance on Earth? Perhaps for infants, but how did we get by as hunter gatherers without our wittle milky dwinkies? Not to mention that (I read somewhere, not sure if it's got any grounds) that the human digestive system isn't developed to process bovine dairy products properly. (hence many people with lactose intolerance or somesuch)

I would say vegetables are the most important, then meats or fruits depending on how you judge "most important".

Pasteurization and irradiation destroys all of the nutritional value of our food. These processes don’t eliminate the microorganism they claim they are killing in our food. It kills the organisms and everything else including the vitamin, mineral and enzyme content of our food.

I would like to know what grounds this claim is based on? How can exposure to heat reduce vitamin content, not to mention mineral content of foods.

Ah, as soon as I read the Aryan race stuff the switch kinda flipped. There is no way I can take this even slightly seriously anymore. It's laughable. They could probably have made away with smaller claims.

[bℓσωηG]

Its all part of the land grab , dupe everyone into thinking they need to eat beef to get big and strong which sees the mass clearing and privatization of lands for farming animals for food.... once most of the earths surface is controlled by meat producing farms, steal it back off the farmers and hey presto the evil doers own everything f'kn thing

[Sheather]

Except that meat actually is good for muscle development and growth. Just most people don't work enough to put it to use and get fat.

How are they going to steal land from the serfs? Without provoking revolts, riots in the streets, and then being overthrown? Either they're much craftier than I think or we're much more stupid on average.

[bℓσωηG]

How are they going to steal land from the serfs?Without provoking revolts, riots in the streets, and then being overthrown?

yar they're called anti terrorism laws... you not likey your govvy? u must be terrorist , just leik all these damn hippie plant lovers lmao

[Magicdirt]

`

Edited May 8, 2011 by Magicdirt

[Sheather]

Divided /= conquered. If every farmer in Aus (or the world) were to lose all their land, then I think there would be unrest. One house here and there won't cause people to do anything because it's not seen as a big deal. If enough of us are mistreated then people may care. The government would lose all support once people realise that they are raping the country. Unless the removal of these farmers directly benefits everyone else? I don't see how that is likely to be the case though.

People anywhere will band together if it gets bad enough, not to help those that are abused, generally, but because of the threat that what happened to them can happen to you. The wolf is knocking on your front door, so to speak.

[ThunderIdeal]

it's your standard frog-boiling scenario.

i suppose they are almost certainly infiltrated by AFP or ASIO or whatever, but there are militia groups in australia that have claimed to outnumber the military, and these are real rednecks who know how to shoot and how to go bush. all i am saying is, these fuckers in high places have some idea how to cook a fucking frog without it trying to hop out of the saucer. i have no doubt the frog could get out if it tried, and spit poison at the chef.

[Slybacon]

London's Food Weapon Slams Kissinger's NSSM 200 Hit List of 13 Nations, and Others the World Over

February 25, 2011 • 10:03AM

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/17601

Henry Kissinger's 1974 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 is an accurate statement of the British empire policy underway today, in which the "food weapon" -- as he called for at the time -- to suppress the population in 13 strategically targetted nations, is today slamming them--look at Egypt, Mexico, India, plus all others worldwide.

The insane destruction of national food capacity and security under globalization, has left billions of people at the mercy of food weaponry in the form of food import-dependence, cash-export desperation, and reliance on "market pricing" for supplies, which now can't be obtained, due to hyperinflated prices, and/or non-existence of the real product.

This all spotlights the necessity of a full turn to a Glass-Steagall credit system for collaboration on short-term emergency measures and long-term development. Immediately, we need a cap on food prices.

The 13 nations specifically targetted in 1974 were:

Africa--Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria;

Asia--India, Pakistan, Bangladesh;

Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines;

Southwest Asia--Turkey; and

The Americas--Mexico, Brazil and Colombia.

At the time, they accounted for 47 percent of the world's population.

Egypt today has 82 million people, utilizing less than 7 percent of their land area, and dependent on food imports, for example, for half of their wheat consumption.

Mexico today, with 111 million people, is import-dependent in a "good" crop year, for over 40 percent of their food (corn, beans, milk powder, other foodstuffs). But early frosts have made the current crop cycle a disaster, and far more imports are needed. In the 1960s, Mexico was a net grains exporter, self-sufficient and headed for dramatic growth; then in the 1980s, the Kissinger policy hit.

India today, with 1,173 million people, is still grain self-sufficient--a legacy of the anti-globalist Green Revolution policy, but it is import-dependent for other staples, including oils and beans; and is undergoing severe disruption in agriculture potential, as a result of downshifts into cash-cropping of exports of niche-foods to the United States and Europe; and downgrading precious farmland to trendy vineyards and similar uses.

Meantime, a grand slam of hyperinflation is hitting all who are poor, no matter where. Inside the U.S., for example, the poor face spending over 20% of their limited means for food, compared to 5% by those well-off (the national average is 7%). This is a one-dimensional snapshot, of course. It's getting far worse for everybody day by day. Millions of people are facing no income at all, and/or no food at all.

But it's far worse in the poorer countries in the world. The following are typical percentages, by nation, of families' consumption expenditures going for food, whose prices are now hyperinflating. For them, such hyperinflation is an immediate existential issue, a matter, literally, of life and death:

AFRICA

Kenya: 45%

Nigeria: 40%

Egypt: 38%

Algeria: 36%

ASIA

Pakistan: 46%

Indonesia: 43%

India: 35%

AMERICAS

Mexico: 24%

Peru, Bolivia: 26-35%

These estimates are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Time Magazine, Feb. 28, 2011.

[synchromesh]

The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it's only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse. If you go to Bosnia or Somalia or Peru or much of the third-world then it appears that the apocalypse has already arrived.

- Terence McKenna

[Slybacon]

Abortion is safer than having a baby, doctors say

Pregnant women should be told that having an abortion is safer than having the baby, according to medical chiefs.

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent 10:00PM GMT 26 Feb 2011

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne...octors-say.html

The advice, which would be given to women considering terminations, has caused anger, with anti-abortion campaigners accusing doctors' leaders of forcing an "absurdly liberal agenda" on women in a vulnerable situation.

The draft guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating terminations.

Its first recommendation on "what women need to know" instructs health professionals: "Women should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term."

The guidance also says that women who are deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most do not suffer any psychological harm. Until now, their advice has been that while rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who had an abortion, there was no evidence that termination itself was likely to trigger psychological problems.

While few dispute that terminations carry fewer physical risks to a woman than those of pregnancy, the impact of abortions on psychological health is highly contentious.

Never before has official advice to doctors and nurses in Britain instructed them to use such comparisons to help pregnant women decide whether to keep a child.

Current guidance simply tells doctors and nurses that they should "be equipped" to provide accurate information about the relative dangers.

Josephine Quintavalle, of the Pro-Life Alliance accused the royal college of "manipulating the evidence" in order to promote a pro-choice message. She said: "I don't believe that most women considering abortions are worried it will kill them or are worrying about dying in childbirth; this is a blatant attempt to force an absurdly liberal agenda on women when they are at their most vulnerable.”

Speaking in a personal capacity, Prof Patricia Casey, a consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: “The message this sends out is very worrying. There are more than 30 studies showing an association between psychological trauma and abortion.”

The guidance, drawn up by 18 senior gynaecologists, nurses and abortion providers also says that pregnant women who are certain of a decision to terminate “should not be subjected to compulsory counselling”. Previous advice only requested that professionals provide the degree of support required by each individual.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: “This guidance isn’t a political document and isn't trying to persuade women to have abortions.”

After being alerted to the concerns by The Sunday Telegraph, the Royal College said it would now rewrite some of the recommendations, upon which consultation closed on Friday.

A spokesman said that while the authors of the guidance intended that the comparison between the risks of abortion and pregnancy was spelt out to those providing terminations, doctors should be able to use their judgment about whether to repeat the point to women in their care.

[synchromesh]

The guidance also says that women who are deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most do not suffer any psychological harm. Until now, their advice has been that while rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who had an abortion, there was no evidence that termination itself was likely to trigger psychological problems.

[random]

"Abortion is safer than having a baby, doctors say"

Seriously i'm lost for words....