Is the WHO trying to kill off gays?

[Teal Lantern]

By getting them all to take"antiretrovirals". It is strange that on the one hand they are promoting a faggot agenda, while at the same time trying to poison them all. Funny old world.

Business 101: Encourage the behavior, then make money prolonging life and treating the symptoms.

Blacks are also a high risk group for "HIV". Maybe they will try to poison them at some point as well.

See: Tuskegee experiment, or 1980s crack epidemic.

[Winston]

Winston, don't let trash mess up your forum. This post by cornfed is reason enough for a ban warning. This site isn't about killing anyone not about attacking gays to this degree. In fact, this post is no different than if he had said the "n" word either. I for one don't want to be associated with trash people like this. Cornfed, come on man, you should know better. Winston , I'll pm you since you probably haven't seen it.

You are right. Advocating killing people is crossing the line, dangerous and illegal too. Sorry Cornfed, but this is not protected by free speech. Free speech is not to be placed over safety and legal ramifications.

This thread will go into the NSFW board, and you will be given a warning by PM. If you post something like this again, you will be banned.

[Cornfed]

You are right. Advocating killing people is crossing the line, dangerous and illegal too. Sorry Cornfed, but this is not protected by free speech. Free speech is not to be placed over safety and legal ramifications.

What the hell are you on about? I did not advocate killing anyone. I am merely reporting what the World Health Organization appears to be doing. Of course the advocating killing non-specific groups is indeed covered by freedom of speech. If someone wrote that they were in favor of the death penalty for child rapists, would that not be covered by free speech?

[Winston]

You are right. Advocating killing people is crossing the line, dangerous and illegal too. Sorry Cornfed, but this is not protected by free speech. Free speech is not to be placed over safety and legal ramifications.

What the hell are you on about? I did not advocate killing anyone. I am merely reporting what the World Health Organization appears to be doing. Of course the advocating killing non-specific groups is indeed covered by freedom of speech. If someone wrote that they were in favor of the death penalty for child rapists, would that not be covered by free speech?

Ok I see what you mean. I'll put this topic back in the regular forum then, and remove your warning. But I'll change the title to better reflect the topic so there's not such a misunderstanding.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But you need to title your threads better next time.

[Winston]

Maybe the reason why they want to promote gays while killing them off too, is because it's part of the elite's population reduction agenda, which they've admitted to publicly?

You see, by promoting gays, more gays come out, and do not reproduce with women. That reduces population.

By killing them off, it reduces population too.

Same with putting unhealthy chemicals in food, vaccines, drugs, etc. Destroying America's health helps reduce the population.

So does making women masculine and not needing men, thus creating a schism between men and women, and a battle of the sexes, which ultimately destroys families and relationships, so that couples do not produce children as much.

They are also promoting the "live for yourself" lifestyle, so less people want children now than before.

All of these agendas result in population reduction in western countries. So perhaps that's their agenda?

[steve55]

You are right. Advocating killing people is crossing the line, dangerous and illegal too. Sorry Cornfed, but this is not protected by free speech. Free speech is not to be placed over safety and legal ramifications.

What the hell are you on about? I did not advocate killing anyone. I am merely reporting what the World Health Organization appears to be doing. Of course the advocating killing non-specific groups is indeed covered by freedom of speech. If someone wrote that they were in favor of the death penalty for child rapists, would that not be covered by free speech?

Cornfed, stop being such a duche. Dude, your excuse is so f'n lame it's laughable and an insult to Winston's intelligence. Winston, did you really buy that excuse? I'm surprised . Cornfed, what you "think" the WHO is doing was nowhere even close to what your thread title implied. I read that article in full and nowhere In that article does promote nor discuss anyone killing gays, and that article doesn't call them faggots either. Winston, did you read that article? Nothing about that article let's cornfed off the hook. Absolutely nothing. Visitors who come to this site see that thread title and that's what they think this site and the people who promote it are about. When a site owner allows that kind of impression it makes him and other members guilty by association. Anymore shaninigans like that and I hope Winston tosses you. See my avatar? Dr Phil is talking to YOU!!!

[Cornfed]

Cornfed, stop being such a duche. Dude, your excuse is so f'n lame it's laughable and an insult to Winston's intelligence. Winston, did you really buy that excuse? I'm surprised . Cornfed, what you "think" the WHO is doing was nowhere even close to what your thread title implied. I read that article in full and nowhere In that article does promote nor discuss anyone killing gays, and that article doesn't call them faggots either.

Right, that is my commentary. DNA terminators like AZT killed its victims comparatively quickly and apparently this was thought to be unsustainable. "Antiretrovirals" inhibit reverse transcriptase, which appears to be part of a ubiquitous cellular repair mechanism. Thus death of AIDS like symptoms would be brought about over a longer period of time. Why should I not draw attention to this? Of course the UN is not going to openly admit what they are up to. When do they ever?

[Anatol]

Hello,

{(I will be forced to openly allude to the 3-letter g word, which is sin. I humbly beg your pardon, gentlemen!)}


I don't understand. Why is it wrong it say that the 3-letter g word people should be punished or at least sequestered??? They're so abnormal!

When I was in university, I told the class that the 3-letter g word and AIDS people should be put on an island. The professor didn't like this and said they had 'human rights'.

We're normal. They are abnormal. And in the case of the latter {(the dangerous HIV)}, they are EXTREMELY dangerous to society!!!

I don't understand why everyone is defending abnormal, immoral, dangerous people all the time!!!

[HouseMD]

My impression is that AIDS is a social construct you could apply to just about any degenerative health condition and HIV is a lab fantasy. If there is any disease manufactured to kill off blacks then it is obviously not working fast enough.

If it is fake I know a guy that you can expose yourself to the blood of to prove just how fake it is. There's nothing to be afraid of if it isn't real, right?

[Moretorque]

My impression is that AIDS is a social construct you could apply to just about any degenerative health condition and HIV is a lab fantasy. If there is any disease manufactured to kill off blacks then it is obviously not working fast enough.

If it is fake I know a guy that you can expose yourself to the blood of to prove just how fake it is. There's nothing to be afraid of if it isn't real, right?

Go reasearch Karry Mullis, Dr. Fauci and aids. Karry was the inventor of the PCR test and won a Nobel Prize for it. He mysteriously died just before the COV breakout.

William Casey director of the CIA in 1981 was quoted as saying "we will know when our job is complete when everything the American people believe is in fact false".

IMO we have arrived at this point when dealing with the mainstream.