ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

by **Dreams End** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:53 am

Hey Campers! Wintler in another thread gave me an assignment and I'm ever so hard at work on it. I made an unsupported assumption that the Association for the Study of Peak Oil had questionable industry ties. I must now admit that I only have one source for that...an article quoted on McGowan's site linking ASPO to Halliburton and Schlumberger. Unfortunately, I can't email the author as he died of West Nile Virus. I shit you not. Here's an idea of the company the Peak Oil gurus keep however: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Support for a remedial program of oil exploration and development versus switching to research and development of alternative energy sources tends to be found among oil experts who are consultants to the industry. While accepting some of the values of the New Age, they largely remain loyal to their calling as oil geologists and wildcatters. The leading trio of Jean H. Laherrere, Colin J. Campbell, and L.F. (Buz) Ivanhoe have worked for, or with, the leading firm modeling oil fields, Petroconsultants of Geneva. Since the 1950s, they have been fed data on oil exploration and production by just about all the major oil companies, as well as by a network of about 2000 oil industry consultants around the world. They use this data to produce reports on various matters pertinent to the oil industry, which they sell back to the industry. "This much is known, Kenneth Deffeyes writes, "the loudest warnings about the predicted peak of world oil production came from Petroconsultants" (Deffeyes, 2001: p. 7). In a late 1998 merger Petroconsultants became IHS Energy Group, a subsidiary of Information Handling Services Group (IHS Group), a diversified conglomerate owned by Holland America Investment Corp., IHS Group's immediate parent company, for the Thyssen-Bornemisza Group (TBG, Inc.). In the 1920s George Herbert Walker and his son-in- law, Prescott Bush, had helped the Thyssen dynasty finance its acquisitions through Union Banking Corp. and Holland-American Trading Corp. (Wikipedia, 2003). Until his death last year, Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the nephew of the Nazi steel and coal magnate, was one of the world's richest men. Some of the old Hubbertians would probably flinch at such an association.<hr></blockquote> from <a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html</a> The original link no longer works. I'll keep trying to find it. But oh boy do I have a treat for you, kiddos. I have been bothered a great deal as some of you know by one Peak Oil popularizer's call for "population reduction". For some people that sounds like something naughty. It worried me, but his actual plan was...well, to have some group of really smart people come up with a plan...so people said I worried too much. But HEY...I found the plan. Or, at least A plan. This is from Colin Campbell's ASPO newsletter 55 (and I thought these things would be boring!) I got it from a site called "Association for Study of Peak Oil, Ireland and Gas, Ireland." It is an article by William Stanton published in their newsletter. You can read it here: <a href="http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/588">www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/588</a> I was going to post just the scary bits. But someone will come along and accuse me of taking it out of context. So here's the whole thing with the juicy bits in bold. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The population of the World expanded six-fold in parallel with oil production during the First Half of the Age of Oil. William Stanton, author of The Rapid Growth of Human Population 1750-2000, contributes the following analysis of how population will have to return to pre-Oil Age levels. Let us hope that it does not come to this, but the options explained do have a certain chilling logic. Reducing Population in step with Oil Depletion Recent articles in the ASPO Newsletter have agreed that the explosion of world population from about 0.6 billion in 1750 to 6.4 billion today was initiated and sustained by the shift from renewable energy to fossil fuel energy in the Industrial Revolution. There is agreement that the progressive exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves will reverse the process, though there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be. In this time of energy abundance, and the complacency it engenders, the vast majority of the general public assumes that what the future holds is “more of the same”. They argue, if pushed, that the expertise inherited by post-fossil-fuel scientists and engineers will allow a smooth transition into a new kind of energy-rich world in which renewable generators will produce as much energy as fossil fuels do now. Such a view is untenable because it ignores the fact that almost all materials essential to modern civilization will be orders of magnitude more costly, and scarce, when they have to be produced using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. In 2150, for example, a wind turbine constructed of steel, concrete and plastic may not be able to generate, during its lifetime, as much renewable energy as would have been used up in creating it. Imagine mining, refining and smelting the metal ores, quarrying and transporting the rock, growing the biomass; fabricating the component parts, and erecting and maintaining the structure, using only the trickle of electricity produced by another similar turbine. Vast engineering projects such as constructing the first Airbus A380 airliner (Bowie 2005), using only renewable energy from start to finish, would be unthinkable (to say nothing of flying the plane without oil!). If, in this article, I discuss ways in which a global population reduction of some 6 billion people is likely to take place during the 21st Century, precedent suggests that nearly everyone will ignore me. “He must be mad”, media reviewers concluded when they read my first probes into the subject two years ago and effectively blacklisted the book (Stanton 2003). After all, do the world’s leading politicians and their scientific advisers, including highly paid demographers working for the United Nations and other international bodies, ever doubt that economic “business as usual” will continue for the foreseeable future? But, given that ASPO is successfully challenging conventional wisdom on oil depletion (there were four anxious letters on the subject of peak oil in my local weekly newspaper in May), what are the options? The first and most likely scenario is rejection. People in high places view an alleged need for population reduction with incredulity, scorn and denial. In consequence, the price of fossil fuels, especially oil, goes on rising without causing serious alarm in the West, except perhaps in the business world. When, probably before 2010, the price is so high that construction of new airliners, airport terminals, Olympic villages and traffic reduction schemes judders to a halt, uncontrollable inflation and recession will spread round the world. The oil price may stabilise for a while, as manufacturing wilts, along with demand for its products. In Third World nations, without oil, that can neither buy food nor grow it in adequate quantity without mechanised agriculture, a Darwinian struggle for shrinking resources of all kinds will be in full swing. Tribe against tribe, religion against religion, family against family, the imperative to survive will be driving strong groups to take what they want from weak ones. The concept of human rights will be irrelevant: “How can the weak have rights to food, when there is not enough even for the strong”? It may well be that, in the West, the same argument will affect the thinking of militarily powerful nations. “If billions must die, and we have the technology to ensure that they are others, not us, why should we hold back”? Instantaneous nuclear elimination of population centres might even be considered merciful, compared to starvation and massacres prolonged over decades. Eventually, probably before 2150, world population will have fallen to a level that renewable energy, mainly biomass, can sustain. It is likely to be similar to the population before the Industrial Revolution. That is the do-nothing, let Nature take its course, scenario, involving more than a century of immeasurable human suffering. What alternatives are there? They have to be scenarios in which enlightened governments and their peoples, with astonishing foresight and determination, take positive action to reverse population growth by new, Draconian, laws. China has pioneered such an approach, by its one child per family policy. ASPO’s Oil Depletion Protocol (Campbell 2004) is a scenario that aims to persuade national governments to cope with declining oil production equitably and peacefully, on the world scale. An annual depletion rate (the percentage of remaining global oil reserves produced each year, currently about 2.5% per year) is calculated by experts, after which nations agree to reduce their consumption and/or production of oil year after year strictly in accordance with the depletion rate. How population reduction will be achieved in step with growing oil shortage is not spelt out. Some will see the Protocol as too idealistic for a Darwinian world, because it expects every nation to co-operate regardless of whether they are resource rich or poor, have a high or a low birth rate, or are responsibly or chaotically governed. Probably the greatest obstacle to the scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world’s unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless. Survival in a Darwinian resource-poor world depends on the ruthless elimination of rivals, not the acquisition of moral kudos by cherishing them when they are weak. In fact, human civilization in the fossil fuel era has been totally anomalous, fuelled by the unthinking exploitation and exhaustion of all the world’s resources, not just fossil fuels. Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out, decades ago, that Western civilization was a “one-shot affair”, for this reason (Duncan 1997). So the population reduction scenario with the best chance of success has to be Darwinian in all its aspects, with none of the sentimentality that shrouded the second half of the 20th Century in a dense fog of political correctness (Stanton 2003 page 193). It is best examined at the nation-state scale. The United Kingdom will serve as the model. To those sentimentalists who cannot understand the need to reduce UK population from 60 million to about 2 million over 150 years, and who are outraged at the proposed replacement of human rights by cold logic, I would say “You have had your day, in which your woolly thinking has messed up not just the Western world but the whole planet, which could, if Homo sapiens had been truly intelligent, have supported a small population enjoying a wonderful quality of life almost for ever. You have thrown away that opportunity.” The Darwinian approach, in this planned population reduction scenario, is to maximise the well-being of the UK as a nation-state. Individual citizens, and aliens, must expect to be seriously inconvenienced by the single-minded drive to reduce population ahead of resource shortage. The consolation is that the alternative, letting Nature take its course, would be so much worse. The scenario is: Immigration is banned. Unauthorised arrives are treated as criminals. Every woman is entitled to raise one healthy child. No religious or cultural exceptions can be made, but entitlements can be traded. Abortion or infanticide is compulsory if the fetus or baby proves to be handicapped (Darwinian selection weeds out the unfit). When, through old age, accident or disease, an individual becomes more of a burden than a benefit to society, his or her life is humanely ended. Voluntary euthanasia is legal and made easy. Imprisonment is rare, replaced by corporal punishment for lesser offences and painless capital punishment for greater. A rough calculation suggests that by following these Draconian but simple rules UK population could be reduced by 5 to 10 million during the first ten years, without excessive pain (compared to the alternatives). If this was thought too fast or too slow, there would be scope for modifying the child entitlements. The punishment regime would improve social cohesiveness by weeding out criminal elements. UK military forces should be maintained strong and alert, given that other nations working to different scenarios, or to none, would certainly attempt Darwinian piracy on UK trade routes, or mount mass immigration invasions of UK coasts. Collaboration with other nations practising the same population reduction scenario would be of great mutual advantage.  Initially the greatest threats to UK security would come from rogue nations unwilling to curb traditionally high birth rates but lacking the means to feed the ever-growing numbers of new mouths. In the past, these were the poverty-stricken nations that repeatedly received humanitarian aid and famine relief, which did nothing to reduce the birth rate. In a Darwinian world, Nature would take its course. In consequence, their populations would reduce particularly fast and their threat would fade away. After four or five decades the populations of the UK and other nations following the same scenario would probably be halved. In the rest of the world, where Nature was doing the reduction in an ambience of massacres and destruction, the proportionate fall would be greater and the pain would have been terrible. In the UK, in contrast, where orderly population shrinkage would have outpaced resource shrinkage, a relatively comfortable quality of life would have been enjoyed throughout the period. There would have been no loss of technological expertise, but it would no longer be employed in grandiose energy-wasteful projects. Instead, there would be intensive research into cost-effective methods of renewable energy recovery. A particular problem could arise from the fact that the world’s greatest oil reserves are controlled by the nations surrounding the Gulf. They have dizzyingly high birth rates which, for cultural reasons, they might not want to lower. Their populations exploded following the discovery of oil, and if the explosion continues, even a very high oil price will not provide enough national income to prevent general poverty. Indeed, the demand for Gulf oil might occasionally fall, if for example alternative sources were still available to nations practising orderly population reduction, and there was minimal demand from the chaotic rest of the world. After a decade or two of unrestricted population growth, with limited income from oil and terrible shortages, especially of water, Nature will begin to reverse population growth around the Gulf. Of course, in a Darwinian world, a militarily powerful nation might try to take oil by force anywhere on the planet. World War Two provided recent examples: oil supply being critical to Germany and Japan. Another problem is likely to be the residual opposition to population reduction from sentimentalists and/or religious extremists unable to understand that the days of plenty, when criminals and the weak could be cherished at public expense, are over. Acts of violent protest, such as are carried out today by animal rights activists and anti-abortionists, would, in the Darwinian world, attract capital punishment. Population reduction must be single-minded to succeed. References Bowie, B. 2005. Building the A380. New Scientist, 11 June 2005 pp 34-41. Campbell, C.J. 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis. Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood. Campbell, C.J. 2004. The Truth about Oil and the Looming Energy Crisis. Eagle Print Ireland. Duncan, R.C. 1997. The Olduvai Theory. In Campbell 1997, pp106-107. Stanton, W. 2003. The Rapid Growth of Human Populations 1750-2000; Histories, Consequences, Issues, Nation by Nation. Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood. Stanton, W. 2005. Living fairly comfortably without fossil fuels. ASPO Newsletter No 52 (April 2005). Item 524.<hr></blockquote> All for now kids. Gotta go to bed. Probably won't be able to sleep, though, 'cause these Peak Oilers are scaaaaary dudes. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 9/19/05 12:58 am

by **jenz** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:12 am

for your research. its nice when they put it in black and white isn't it? now it behoves us to ask all who sincerely believe that engineered population reduction is the way to go to do the decent thing and fall on their swords, by way of showing us how sincere their beliefs are. suddenly, I begin to appreciate the Catholic Church doctrine on birth control -

by **wintler** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:48 am

for posting in context. 1. W.Stanton is not a member of ASPO, tho his text does appear in an ASPO newsletter. 2. Stanton outlines a/the problem and attempts to imagine a solution to it. The scale of the problem is such that 'unthinkable' thoughts must be thunk, such as, shock, horror, restraints on # offspring, and on immigration. Do you oppose those because you think there's plenty more planet left to burn, or cos you don't think the number of people has any impact on the environment? Or are you prepared to calmly consider how a sustainable population might be brought about, as Stanton attempts to do. He supposes a topdown govt administration of peaceful negative population growth, where-as i, a hopeless romantic, want cultural change to bring the same thing about. Neither have a snowballs chance in hell of happening, (see <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/8990.html">www.energybulletin.net/8990.html</a> for a good argument why), so we'll keep growing till we consume the last of our natural capital and the human and every other species populations crash to a tiny fraction of current. Have a nice day. Oh, and jenz, i'm no fan of 'engineered population reduction', but i nonetheless consider doing 'the decent thing' regularly. Given the relative impact of our generation on future generations, it may be the only possible moral act. "neither weep nor laugh, but understand.'' Spinoza

by **jenz** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:55 am

that's a crummy idea wintler, we are all needed, (well more or less all - I suppose I'd leave out a few psychos in that assessment). should probably have elaborated a bit more on playing God, man made disasters are not the only one's likely to affect the planet, and man made population engineering is not the only way our numbers become reduced. there's an arrogance about our era.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 am

wintler, what are you talking about? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>1. W.Stanton is not a member of ASPO, tho his text does appear in an ASPO newsletter.<hr></blockquote> The "context" is that it's in the ASPO newsletter and REPRINTED in the Irish associate ASPO newsletter. Although there is the FAINTEST of caveats about "let's hope it doesn't come to this" there is no condemnation of the ideas and they are, in fact, described as having "chilling logic". I read the article several times to make sure it wasn't some sort of satire or "look what will happen if we don't act soon" kind of piece. It's not. It is a plan. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Or are you prepared to calmly consider how a sustainable population might be brought about, as Stanton attempts to do.<hr></blockquote> Glad to see you find his attempt rational. No, when I see plans for Nazi style eugenics, I am not calm. Thanks for being clear about your own perspective, though. If you are prepared to consider this kind of garbage calmly, as a legitimate perspective...I'm afraid our relationship is just not going to work out. You can keep the ring, though. I have been saying for months now that "Peak Oil" has become an excuse (and not the first one, mind you...these arguments for population reduction actually precede Peak Oil) to talk of population reduction of the type mentioned here. Ruppert was not willing to outline what such a plan might look like. Though ASPO puts no official endorsement stamp on this, it is clear they consider this a valid option. You keep defending it if you want, but you really might want to look into who had similar ideas before so you know the company you will be keeping. Killing the handicapped? Nice.

by **dbeach** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:31 am

populaton reduction is what many of the dictators practiced and what the NWO is about.. science says its time to reduce the planet pop ..after giving us lots of neato weaopns to do the deed... pop reduction is anoteyr myth used by the elites to condition the masses... lots of great arguements to support pop reduction ..but in the end ..its still removing human beings..does fit neatly with the aliens who will be here to claim planet earth as their home ITS ALL ABOUT THE LAND GRAB and who gets to control the resources..so far the elites have nearly brought the planet to the final solution... We need more humans ..who is gonna find all those great mountains and oceans in other planets and distant galaxies..??? iI BET THERE IS BETTER SURF BESIDES PLANET EARTH AND MTS FOR SURE.. WE NEED EACH OTHER and we need to take care of our Mother earth

by **AnnaLivia** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:57 am

Just another reminder that many who accept the reality that fossil fuels are a finite resource, totally reject the “culling the herd” attitude for the diabolic stupidity that it is. What I see as correct: fossil fuels are finite. We in the “west” are needlessly squandering them, and that puts everyone’s descendents at risk of hardships we can barely imagine. What’s left must be conserved so that what’s left can be used to find our new energy. Education is the key to controlling our population quite naturally. Economic equity is the key to providing the necessary education. The Malthusians are wrong and should be countered (but not by spreading another lie like abiotic oil or peak oil isn’t real). We have not reached over-population yet. We won’t if we start acting in accord with what we believe. My beef is that those who seek to expose how the wealthpowerful are exploiting the fossil fuel issue and profiteering from it, never seem to mention that there really is a problem which, if ignored, is going to cause a magnitude of suffering beyond comprehension. Please please please do not aid the inertia!! consider what you are doing!!

by **BlueCherub** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:05 pm

Thanks for posting this Dreams End. I've long suspected that population reduction was at the heart of the elites plan. You only have to look at the Iraq war-people being killed for absolutely no reason, Hurricane Katrina-people left to die for days and now weeks in their attics (obviously enough people didn't die to their satisfaction) and now the coming flu epidemic that old Dubya was reading about this summer! (!!!) If that doesn't send alarms ringing through ya, I don't know what will! I think they are coming after the undesirables (defined in their sick minds) first; minorities, the poor, the ill, the elderly and yes the handicapped and disabled. Next comes the middle class and anyone who voted blue or who they consider a "dissenter". I am so sickened by their evil deeds and plans that I'm having trouble sleeping too. The most frightening part is that most of the people in this country still can't read the writing on the wall! Oh yeah, the corporate media gave everyone a glimpse for a week or so, but now it's business as usual-they gotta rake in as much cash as they can before the majority of the population is dead, ain't that right?! <sarcasm>

by **RollickHooper** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:34 pm

Lots of talk on this board about diappearing billions and underground bunkers being built to weather the firestorm on the surface--nuclear holocaust, plague and pestilence, famine whatever--and the high-tech engineering to bring it about--and the "plausible deniability" of making themselves look stupid and clumsy--and it's all very sexy but when I think it through to its end the question arises, What then? If you make the earth uninhabitable for the unwashed masses, how will your own progeny fare? What will they eat, what will they drink? If the earth is too toxic to support human life, where will they go? Oh--right, spaceships.

by **OnoI812** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:37 pm

Dreams end- thanks for posting that first part (The Sheasby excerpt) again....I believe I brought most of this up In one of the first Peak oik scam (POS) threads back in April or May(now deleted from discussion #1) Further, the poster you are responding to is even incorrect in his assertion that Hubbert was the first to promote POS...Hubbert is yet another tool trotted out by the same old players. He, like all other POS 's, do not take into account, the classified pools most nations are hiding. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>“On September 1, 1926, at the first stockholders meeting of the incorporated I.G., plans were announced for construction of the big new synthetic oil plant at Leuna. The wisdom of pushing the project seemed to be corroborated a few days later when President Coolidge’s Federal Oil Conservation Board submitted its preliminary report on the question of ‘national petroleum conditions’ in the United States. The board found that ‘the total present reserves in pumping and flowing wells . . . has been estimated at about 4 ½ billion barrels, which is theoretically but six years’ supply . . . future maintenance of even current supplies implies the constant discovery of new fields and the drilling of new wells.’ Even the worst pessimists were taken by surprise by the six-year estimate.<hr></blockquote> Now I've put the challenge out before...If anyone can find an earlier instance when POS was rolled out...I'm sure we'd all like to see it. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=onoi812>OnoI812</A> at: 9/19/05 10:54 am

by **jowettknowit** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:01 pm

some relevant theses in the population discussion 1. the planet is not near its limit of sustainable population 2. the population explosion idea is promoted to soften up the population to genocide data: robert macnamara of the trilateral commission is quoted ['the naked empress'] as saying that 'we have failed to control population by artificial means, so we will have to use natural means' - in other words, contraception hasnt worked, so we are going to use diseases - the trilateral commission want to reduce population to 2 billion - ie, kill 4 billion is it likely that aids and sars were sitting around in africa and china for centuries without moving and then suddenly got up and travelled? there is plenty of room for increased food production: there is one acre of growing land per person, and agriculture can feed 100 people per acre - a family can be fed from 4 sq metres of garden - obviously, if the most intensive, efficient agriculture, as that of holland and china and the ganges, is extended to the whole world growing area, many times more than present population can be fed - there are large areas of desert that can be productive with intelligent practices - practices that are not used by the five corporations who control WHO and world food markets - when moneymonomaniacs run things, they dont use intelligence - moneymonomaniacs run things whenever there is unlimited fortunes to be had - seawater can be desalinated very cheaply, esp. so in desert areas - trees establish in the australian desert with just the effect of fences [which concentrate bird crap] agricultural efficiency of sudan and china are 30 times agric. eff. of usa ['the book of world rankings'] - small farms are 16 times more efficient than big farms - they have been talking about a population explosion for 200 years - since 1800, when the world population was 1 billion - based on malthus, who later repudiated his own false ideas - his dumb idea was taken up by the people who wanted an excuse not to feed the starving - widespread famine would not be the effect of population outgrowing food - population would merely level off at the food limit - famines are caused by theft of better land and inefficient use of it when in the hands of few - profitseeking leads to creating scarcity in food - ie, the starving of some, so that prices are kept high - they did it in britain in the early 19th c, preventing importation of grain during bad harvest times 'to make a killing' - they are doing it in the world today - the price doesnt go up until there is a shortage; when there is a shortage, some people miss out world population is not so great as we are brainwashed: present world population in a crowd would cover an area of only 25x30 kilometres - the bahamas - the present population could be housed and fed off 100,000 sq miles=250,000 sq kilometres=25,000,000 hectares=60 million acres=1/100th of the world growing land ['population matters'] the superpowerful figure they dont need more than 2 billion slaves - also, population is heading for 100 billion by 2100 - 98% blacks and browns - only 2 billion whites - im sure the white superpowerful, the texas oilboys, dont like the look of that

by **jowettknowit** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:14 pm

any mathematician will tell you that the exponential graph of the population explosion is a 'smooth' graph - ie, the 'elbow' in the curve, when the population seems to take off, can be set at any time, just by altering the vertical scale - 1000AD or 3000AD - or 2000AD these are just some pointers to show that what they say maybe just aint so

by **Dreams End** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:43 pm

Hope this article continues to generate discussion. To me, if a central figure of an organization such as ASPO prints such an article it would be reasonable grounds for suspicion that they could be cherry picking data in order to support an agenda which, frankly, was around long before Peak Oil. So sure, you can buy "Peak Oil" but not the depopulation part...but who are you listening to? You've got oil company "experts" such as those at Petroconsultants and you have an organization that considers this article to be an unfortunate possibility but a possibility nonetheless...and that's just what they say openly. Before peak oil there was the exact same talk of the need to depopulate and I keep seeing the number 2 billion. Their idea is that other resources were the issue, not oil. Water, food, etc. As for killing of the handicapped and the infirm...that has a history to. I hope I have made a clear case here. Sure, I can't disprove Peak Oil...but I think I have laid out a compelling case that we should be very wary about many advocating the Peak Oil position. And if you think of oil companies and the people who started them and their role in the world...you should really not underestimate the sorts of things they are willing to do to keep control.

by **Pants Elk** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:50 pm

... can we please stop shouting in red? Very hard on the eye, and puts me off reading what might be interesting ...

by **dbeach** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:54 pm

so the elites will kill off most of us,,micro chip the remaining and have their mindless slaves to dig out the earths resources.. then they will fly off to their next victim planet..neat work if ya can get it plus they will have us pay for their merriment.. elites and aliens EAT LOOSH

ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

thanks

thanks

decent thing

Re: decent thing

Re: decent thing

Re: decent thing

Re: Population Reduction

Re: Population Reduction

Re: ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

population matters

oh, and i forgot...

Re: oh, and i forgot...

... and a request

Re: oh, and i forgot...

Who is online