The Ultimate Food Secret - Exposed

[Danimal]

Basically a video about food additives and preservatives, and what they can do to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSpkLk0vYmk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B9MeO3SRxU

Just got uploaded today. Watch before ye' judge!

 

[Stormy]

Ehg, all he ever does is bloody complain.

 

[Viperidae]

Let me guess. Fat is bad. High fructose corn syrup too.

Derpy derp, make your own food.

 

[Danimal]

Why don't you watch it and find out?

 

[Warped]

I recently stopped drinking pop and my body does feel much better. i drink that flavored water, which probably isn't better but i hardly ever eat out for dinner. fast food joints are disgusting and unhealthy

 

[Danimal]

Do you mean those Vitamin Water things that 50 Cent owns?

 

[Raziaar]

I recently stopped drinking pop and my body does feel much better. i drink that flavored water, which probably isn't better but i hardly ever eat out for dinner. fast food joints are disgusting and unhealthy

Fast food is delicious!



Okay... it's one thing to come out and extoll the fact that these foods are bad for you, things that are pretty much common knowledge, even though most continue to consume them. However, it's a completely different thing and completely absurd the level of conspiracy he takes this. A grand conspiracy to sterilize the masses, to enact a totalitarian government.... through food?

My god, come on...

 

[15357]

Sterilization through food resources?


That's disturbing, to say the least.

 

[Raziaar]

Fewer people on the planet to buy their products. It's a GENIUS plan to drive up profits!

You know, I drink so much fluoridated water it's unbelievable. I mean you don't see me being a mindle

Must... Kill... Danimal...

 

[StarBob]

I didn't watch these, but I eat too much fast food since I always have it for lunch. I tried bringing my own lunch, but I am just way too lazy to pack it. I exercise and eat fairly healthy for other meals of the day but it's that lunch that gets me. Subway's one of the few places you can actually eat a fairly health meal (one that doesn't inclue a ton of fat and cholesterol) and I try to have some lunches there... but there's only so much Subway you can take. The advantage is, however, that it's basically the only place where you can get free food if you eat there long enough. I should put more effort in to eating healthy really. It's not that hard, I'm just lazy about it.

 

[Warped]

well its a known fact that Vegetarians who eat Organic food live roughly 10-20% longer than people who eat regular food

edit: may be even more than That, but what do I know??

 

[Krynn72]

And nothing new was learned.

Everyone knows this food is bad for us. Nobody cares.

 

[Emporius]

/Emporius enters thread

/Emporius sees Alex Jones in video preview

/Emporius leaves thread

 

[Remus]

Everyone knows this food is bad for us. Nobody cares.

This.

Me continues to eat processed food.

EDIT: Also his *serious business* expression on the first video preview is priceless.

 

[Danimal]

Sterilization through food resources?
That's disturbing, to say the least.

A rare kind of response from you, Numbers.

Fast food is delicious!

Okay... it's one thing to come out and extoll the fact that these foods are bad for you, things that are pretty much common knowledge, even though most continue to consume them. However, it's a completely different thing and completely absurd the level of conspiracy he takes this. A grand conspiracy to sterilize the masses, to enact a totalitarian government.... through food?

My god, come on...

So, like.

John P. Holdren is currently Obama's advisor for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

He released a book in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. It's a book offering solutions and methods to suit overpopulation - one of them being adding a sterilant to drinking water and staple foods.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Amongst other things, of course (Spoiler'd 'cause of it's semi-relevance):

Spoiler

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.

Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

He goes on to mention that an international agency, or collection of such, would be needed to enforce these methods of population control.

Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

It's not entirely obvious as to whether or not John Holdren still holds these views - the co-authors of the book have certainly said they've stepped back from the claims made in that book these days, according to this Washington Times article.

When asked whether Mr. Holdren's thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization."
...
The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, "anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement."

Also, an article by the Catholic News Agency, was written on the same day.

In Tuesday e-mails to CNA, Rick Weiss, the Office of Science and Technology Policy's Director of Strategic Communications, said the material at issue was from "a three-decade-old, three-author textbook used in colleges to teach energy policy."
He could "easily dismiss" fears that Dr. Holdren favors government control over population growth.
"He made that quite clear in his confirmation hearing," Weiss said.
He then quoted a section of the confirmation transcript in which Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked Holdren whether he thinks "determining optimal population is a proper role of government."
"No, Senator, I do not," was Holdren's reply, according to Weiss and a transcript of the proceedings.
In other remarks at the confirmation hearing, not cited by Weiss, Holdren told Sen. Vitter he no longer thinks it is "productive" to focus on the "optimum population" for the United States. "I don't think any of us know what the right answer is."
According to Weiss, Holdren "made clear that he did not believe in coercive means of population control" and is not an advocate for measures expressed in the book "and they are certainly not endorsed by this administration in any way."
Weiss also provided CNA with a statement from the book's other two authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
The Ehrlichs said they had been "shocked" at what they called the "serious misrepresentation" of their and Holdren's views.
"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended -- in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator."
Describing "Ecoscience" as a "textbook," they said its descriptions can be "misrepresented as endorsement."

The statement (Given by a spokesperson of Holdren, rather than Holdren himself) says that Holdren has denied any and all advocation for totalitaran controlled population control while at a confirmation hearing.

The confirmation hearing can be viewed and heard for yourself though the actual denial isn't said until roughly 120 minutes of streamed video into the hearing. So here's a transcript lewl:

Senator David Vitter: In 1973, you encouraged "a decline in fertility well below replacement" in the United States because "280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many." What would your number for the right population in the US be today?

John Holdren: I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, uh, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the greater population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities; it's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period.

Senator David Vitter: You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?

John Holdren: No, Senator, I do not.

I suppose I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not a one-line statement at what is essentially a job interview, is enough of a blanket to deny such strong beliefs he held thirty years ago.

I didn't really mean for this post to be so ****ing long, so I can already imagine that you'd be over reading this sort of thing - to be honest, you probably don't plan on reading up much on it either.

"Danimal's smoking too much weed huhu"

So after such an unintentional wall of text, I think I'll just leave this half-hour long video at the end made by George Hunt.

Before you watch it, I guess I better give a bit of a disclaimer: The narration at the start of the video will make you roll your eyes, 'cause of how straight-up he describes things - but please, have paitence! He moves on to show you actual footage of UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) meetings, describing plans involving Population Control (the entire point of this post), how common men like you and I are "cannon fodder" etc.

As he will tell you, he is not a professional in the field of video/acting/script-reading - and that is quite evident from the moment you start watching it but I trust you guys are less vain than to judge the credibility of the video on it's visual quality.

George Hunt, a business consultant, was present at the earlier mentioned 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress as a member of the staff.

At the conference he noticed it had very little to do with the conventional environment movement and was surprised to see people like Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild (Pilgrims Society), David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), and James A. Baker (Pilgrims Society; Cap & Gown; trustee American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Atlantic Council of the United States; National Security Planning Group; Bohemian Grove; CFR; Carlyle; advisor George W. Bush in his 2000 election).

The Fourth World Wilderness Conference​

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6642758020554799808#

Links and stuff:

Spoiler

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ - This link contains full-page scans and photographs of the book Ecoscience, in case you doubt it's exsistence, you can also check out the scans and see whether you find the quotes to be taken out of context. please.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....hread/422c3c5fdc0e2eaa/ca30c80b72b05bea?pli=1
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...t_coercive_population_control_spokesman_says/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/15/hot-button-40981162/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/051007_george_hunt.html

I was gonna' do another section on the United Nation's Agenda 21 but I'm at work s0n.

I guess I could a pretty douchey thing and just post random vintage cigarette ads, hoping someone will make some kind of connection to what I'm talking about.

Spoiler

 

[Krynn72]

I for one think its a great idea!

 

[Danimal]

I for one think its a great idea!

And nothing new was learned.

Everyone knows this Krynn is bad for us. Nobody cares.

 

[JUL3]

I have barely touched fast food since I saw Food Inc. & when I did (I had to, there was nowhere else to eat) I didn't enjoy it.

... Now who wants to touch me? ... I said who wants to f*cking touch me!
/South Park reference.

 

[15357]

A rare kind of response from you, Numbers.

To be perfectly honest, most of the time, whether conspiracies such as this are true or not is completely irrelevant. To me, what matters is what people think. For example, how many people believe that 9/11 was conducted by the US government? Is it a worrying proportion of the population? Can it be reversed? Can the population be reeducated? Is it viable to eradicate the "virus of the idea"? etc, etc.

And I always think, what if? It's a kind of a mental exercise for me. What things could be done to counter such and such. And this time, I thought: What if Danimal is right? The consequences could be horrendous.

Sure, I've supported some controversial methods in the past, but never the sterilization of humanity. I've always stood firmly by the belief that manipulation of population growth would always lead to the extinction of the human race. The more the merrier, I've always said. The idea that MAN needs to actively reduce his numbers seemed to be an affront to all the ideals of Man, and an insult to everyone that lived. I mean, who are you to cry out that we need to reduce our population? What is the matter with you? Not enough Lebensraum for you and your white, Christian, and blond supermen? The thought, the audacity of those people who thought some people shouldn't be alive. The idea that some shouldn't be allowed the right to live without ever having harmed society and humanity! That some shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, to bear children into this world, where they will be humanity's future. What kind of a sick twisted idea is that?

Sure, overpopulation can be a problem. But trying to actively curve humanity's numbers is never a good idea. Any species that has contained its population growth have always suffered extinction. Overpopulation always solves itself naturally. We shouldn't meddle in such stuff.

So, worrying, to say the least. Some people want to wipe out billions of human beings. Not good. And if water sources, food sources are tainted, there's nothing much we can do to fight it. The smaller the population, the more threat it will have to humanity's survival, and evolution.

Very bad indeed. Not sure if true, but if such people do exist, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to exist anymore.

 

[PvtRyan]

well its a known fact that Vegetarians who eat Organic food live roughly 10-20% longer than people who eat regular food

edit: may be even more than That, but what do I know??

Perhaps because those people are already more conscious about food than the average Joe and thus more likely to eat responsibly (and thus healthier)? The fact they made such a conscious decision alone makes them already more serious about food than 99% of the population. Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with organic food or vegetarianism.

Correlation <> causation, it's not that hard people!

Other than that, this seems like a horribly convoluted and ineffective plan to reduce the population, especially since the life expectancy is only going up in almost every place on Earth. Our NWO overlords are apparently not very good at their jobs. The best way to reduce population growth, is now the consensus, is to increase wealth. Wealthier, more educated people have less children. It's what happened in the Western world and it's what currently happening everywhere else.

 

[15357]

What? What happened to bombing the shit out of them?

 

[Danimal]

Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed - Addendum - "Chemical BPA" Linked to Medical Problems​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QRKQGvT5Cg&feature=player_embedded

Alex expounds on the addition dangers of chemicals like Bisphenol-A, including sterility, often added to food packaging.

lol NIN in the background.

 

[Raziaar]

A rare kind of response from you, Numbers.



He's great at pulling over-srs faces, he's got a pretty Optimus Prime thing going on sometimes in his voice too, like his narration in Endgame.

So, like.

John P. Holdren is currently Obama's advisor for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

He released a book in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. It's a book offering solutions and methods to suit overpopulation - one of them being adding a sterilant to drinking water and staple foods.




Amongst other things, of course (Spoiler'd 'cause of it's semi-relevance):


He goes on to mention that an international agency, or collection of such, would be needed to enforce these methods of population control.





It's not entirely obvious as to whether or not John Holdren still holds these views - the co-authors of the book have certainly said they've stepped back from the claims made in that book these days, according to this Washington Times article.



Also, an article by the Catholic News Agency, was written on the same day.



The statement (Given by a spokesperson of Holdren, rather than Holdren himself) says that Holdren has denied any and all advocation for totalitaran controlled population control while at a confirmation hearing.

The confirmation hearing can be viewed and heard for yourself though the actual denial isn't said until roughly 120 minutes of streamed video into the hearing. So here's a transcript lewl:



I suppose I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not a one-line statement at what is essentially a job interview, is enough of a blanket to deny such strong beliefs he held thirty years ago.

I didn't really mean for this post to be so ****ing long, so I can already imagine that you'd be over reading this sort of thing - to be honest, you probably don't plan on reading up much on it either.

"Danimal's smoking too much weed huhu"

So after such an unintentional wall of text, I think I'll just leave this half-hour long video at the end made by George Hunt.

Before you watch it, I guess I better give a bit of a disclaimer: The narration at the start of the video will make you roll your eyes, 'cause of how straight-up he describes things - but please, have paitence! He moves on to show you actual footage of UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) meetings, describing plans involving Population Control (the entire point of this post), how common men like you and I are "cannon fodder" etc.

As he will tell you, he is not a professional in the field of video/acting/script-reading - and that is quite evident from the moment you start watching it but I trust you guys are less vain than to judge the credibility of the video on it's visual quality.

The Fourth World Wilderness Conference​

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6642758020554799808#

Links and stuff:

Spoiler

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ - This link contains full-page scans and photographs of the book Ecoscience, in case you doubt it's exsistence, you can also check out the scans and see whether you find the quotes to be taken out of context. please.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....hread/422c3c5fdc0e2eaa/ca30c80b72b05bea?pli=1
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...t_coercive_population_control_spokesman_says/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/15/hot-button-40981162/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/051007_george_hunt.html

I was gonna' do another section on the United Nation's Agenda 21 but I'm at work s0n.

I guess I could a pretty douchey thing and just post random vintage cigarette ads, hoping someone will make some kind of connection to what I'm talking about.

Spoiler

Alright. I went and read all of this. I'm not going to dissect it into little parts and comment on each one, because I don't really feel the need to argue against this. I mean, if it's what you believe, it's what you believe.

But let me ask one thing. You do realize that just because an individual or group of individual writes a book which discusses the very real possibility of planetary overcrowding and the possible ways to combat it both mundane and controversial, doesn't mean they endorse those measures, right?


I mean honestly though, as humanity expands in the future, these sorts of things need serious discussion and contemplation. If you have a firm understanding of what's all involved, you may be better prepared. Radical, controversial methods need to be discussed too, because it helps you develop a better understanding of them, why they are bad or good, etc.

I mean... I doubt the guy is for forced sterilization of the population, even though he discusses it as a possible solution, among many.

 

[Danimal]

Ah well, at least you read it. Too bad you didn't watch the video.

(But you are playing Minecraft)

Stay tuned for my next long-winded post: Probably about occult symbolism in pop culture! ;D

 

[Stigmata]

Ah well, at least you read it. Too bad you didn't watch the video.

(But you are playing Minecraft)

Stay tuned for my next long-winded post: Probably about occult symbolism in pop culture! ;D

/salute. You do a good deed, Banimal.

I see a lot of danger in what's going on with the world, but I think it's a mistake to say that it's a full conspiracy. The fundamental goal of all these oppressive conspiracies is power. It's easier to say that these people and corporations are working together because they are best able to help each other, and they're all just trying to profit for themselves.

That being said, they do so by ignoring evidence and being aware of and complicit in the deaths and genetic mutilation of millions of people. We can't have that.

 

[VirusType2]

fructose accelerates cancer in a lab.

I'm sure that God just put fructose in fruit and such because he didn't think we would see the conspiracy.

 

[Emporius]

fructose accelerates cancer in a lab.

I'm sure that God just put fructose in fruit and such because he didn't think we would see the conspiracy.

Oxygen is toxic in large doses. THIS CONSPIRACY CONTINUES TO GROW.

 

[Danimal]

I guess I should throw this in.

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins and Herbs

Roughly 40 minutes, but I'd recommend watching it when you have the time.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634#

Here's a quick snippet of some stuff she goes through in documents, as an attempt of me trying to spark curiosity in you etc. etc. etc.

“3.2 Contents of vitamins and minerals

3.2.1 The minimum level of each vitamin and/or mineral contained in a vitamin and mineralfood supplement per daily portion of consumption as suggested by the manufacturer should be 15% of the recommended daily intake as determined by FAO/WHO.

3.2.2 Maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in vitamin and mineral food supplements per daily portion of consumption as recommended by the manufacturer shall be set, taking the following criteria into account:

(a) upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals established by scientific risk assessment based
on generally accepted scientific data, taking into consideration, as appropriate, the varying
degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups;

(b) the daily intake of vitamins and minerals from other dietary sources.
When the maximum levels are set, due account may be taken of the reference intake values of
vitamins and minerals for the population. This provision should not lead to setting of maximum levels that are solely based on recommended nutrient intakes (e. g. Population Reference Intake or Recommended Daily Allowance values).”