The Depopulation Agenda Revisited
Due to the interest in my last post, ‘Starmer is Not Dim, Just Evil,’ I thought I would repost a 4 part series I wrote back in 2023 entitled, The Depopulation Agenda which may be of interest for those readers who weren’t subscribers at the time. It will highlight just how long the depopulation agenda has been in play.
Here are the first 2 parts. I will repost the 3rd and 4th parts tomorrow
The Depopulation Agenda - Part 1
The history of population control
Population growth and the consequent need for population control and even 'depopulation' has long been a concern of the elites. Thomas Malthus, an 18th century economist, was one of the first people to voice his concerns that rapid population growth would eventually exceed the means of production. He argued that there was insufficient farmland and therefore insufficient means to grow enough food to feed the burgeoning population.
Ironically, as we shall see in part 2, today’s government policies could actually be making this scenario more likely with some academics even suggesting deliberately creating the scarcity that Malthus feared in order to alleviate the ‘climate crisis.’
The idea of population reduction was then embraced by the eugenics movement who sought to improve the human race by eradicating undesirable inheritable characteristics. One of the main proponents of this was Sir Francis Galton. He was a Victorian polymath who believed intelligence was inheritable and resorted to meticulously taking people’s body measurements, including skull size, in a failed attempt to find a defining characteristic which would be an indicator of intelligence. This pseudo-science of craniology was later adopted by the Nazi’s in their quest to prove they were the superior race.
Whereas these early proponents of population control targeted races and other minority groups to promote their racist ideas, today’s advocates for depopulation target the whole of humanity to promote their environmental ideology. One of the favoured options of the eugenicists was forced birth control or sterilisation of the undesirables. It may just be that today’s environmental zealots, who appear to have their hand s on all the levers of power, and who view us all as undesirables, will have their dreams fulfilled as birth rates are falling dramatically in many countries. This is hardly surprising as vaccines, food, water and, even the air around us, are laden with anti-fertility substances as will be explored in parts 3 and 4.
Just as the anti-human, pseudo-scientific ideas of the net-zero zealots are accepted by our so-called ‘educated’ class today, the unscientific and racist theories of yesterday’s eugenicists were once common among the intellectual classes, particularly after Charles Darwin, the half-cousin of Galton, gave them a gloss of scientific responsibility when he developed the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest.’
Darwin stated in his, ‘The Descent of Man’ –
“Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.”
Julian Huxley, whose great grandfather was a friend of Darwin, was president of the British Eugenics society and was embraced by academia and the elites, being a Fellow of the Royal Society and president of UNESCO.
He wrote –
“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore... they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation.”
George Bernard Shaw, another favourite of the intelligentsia, was an admirer of Stalin and a rabid eugenicist. He frequently advocated the extermination of those people that did not benefit society proclaiming that the only justification needed was their ‘incorrigible social incompatibility’-
He re-iterated this philosophy when he said –
“If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent, human way.”
H.G. Wells, beloved by the intellectuals of his day, promoted the killing of alcoholics, people with physical and mental illness and sterilisation of ‘inferior’ people.
Wells was a friend of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, an organisation founded on eugenics. Her contempt of people she deemed inferior is well known. She once said -
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Another one of her many sickening quotes is -
“Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.”
Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice advocate that performs over 350,000 abortions every year. However, it has its roots in eugenics and the hatred of humanity. It was recently found to be selling aborted baby parts for profit, which tells you all you need to know.
To emphasise how important this group is one only has to see the companies that donate to it – Microsoft, General Electric, Bank of America, Shell, Pfizer, Starbucks, American Express, PayPal, Boeing and the Temple of Satan. The last of these organisations openly supports abortion because it is part of their satanic rituals. Planned Parenthood is also a big hit with celebrities, receives vast amounts of money from the US government and one of its previous board members was Bill Gates’ father.
After the second world war, eugenics couldn’t be openly embraced so another reason to justify depopulation had to be created – the environment.
In 1967, John D Rockefeller used the excuse of overpopulation when he said, “If we do not make voluntary family planning possible in this generation, we may make compulsory family planning inevitable for future generations. “
However, the real clarion call for the elites to openly promote their depopulation agenda came in 1993. That year, the Club of Rome, founded by David Rockefeller and consisting of world leaders and businessmen, had a meeting, the purpose of which was to unite the world behind a common crisis that could only be solved by the globalist elite and, at the same time, would advance their depopulation plans. At this meeting they said -
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
“The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Thus, was born the global warming myth – a myth, promulgated with the assistance of the mainstream media and used to justify depopulation, with the whole of humanity now the target.
Prince Philip, for instance, was a big supporter of culling the population. He said -
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Paul Ehrlich, an environmentalist, renowned for making apocalyptic predictions about the end of the world due to overpopulation, wrote in his book, ‘the population bomb’ -
"We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.”
Ted Turner, founder of CNN is another great fan of depopulation and once said -
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Jacque Cousteau, the famous oceanographer and film maker was another supporter of wiping out vast swathes of humanity. In a 1991 interview he proclaimed -
“World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”
The following year he was invited to the Rio Earth Summit and became a consultant for the United Nations.
John Holdren, President Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is a staunch supporter of forced sterilisation, even advocating putting sterilising chemicals in our drinking water. This is interesting as fluoride and chlorine, already introduced to the water supply in various parts of the world, does cause fertility issues as discussed in part 4.
He has also said –
“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.”
David Brower, founder of various environmental movements and three times nominated for the Nobel peace prize, suggested that only the select few should be allowed to have children -
“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
The following, though, is one of the most horrific and disturbing quotes of all, from a paper by Italian professors published in the British Medical Journal. In it, the authors propose that murdering new-born infants is totally acceptable as they are not really human -
“By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. ”
But it’s not just infants they want to kill. The authors of a Lancet report who claim that ‘death is healthy,’ want to let people with life-threatening illness die to reduce their carbon footprint.
Naturally, the elderly are also targets. Recently a Yale Professor has suggested that elderly Japanese should commit suicide to stop them being a burden on society.
As previously stated, Thomas Malthus feared food scarcity due to overpopulation. Part 2 will examine how government policies may lead to this very eventuality.
The Depopulation Agenda – Part 2
Creating food scarcity
Henry Kissinger, one of the most influential politicians of the last 50 years, famous for saying, “the elderly are useless eaters,” considered the idea of using food to control the population. In his 1974, “National Security Study Memorandum 200,” he outlined a number of countries of strategic importance for the US that he claimed had problems with population growth that might give them more economic, and military strength. He advocated birth control programmes for those countries and suggested that if they did not do this willingly, withdrawing food aid to them may act as an incentive to make them comply –
“Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?”
Using food as a weapon, though, is not just an idea. It has been put into practice before. Russia did it in Turkestan in 1917, where they took control of food production and distribution, resulting in starvation and a drastic reduction in the indigenous population. The USA and Canadian governments also implemented it by slaughtering the buffalo population to starve the indigenous people into submission so they would give up their land to settlers.
Now, there is a concern among many including economists, Wall Street veterans and citizens groups that controlling the food supply is once more being implemented to control and reduce the population.
It is claimed by powerful groups like the UK’s Climate Change Committee and the International Panel on Climate Change, and the governments they influence, that the main factor exacerbating the so-called ‘climate crisis’ is co2. In reality, co2 is essential to all life. If co2 levels are drastically reduced, plant life, that requires co2 for photosynthesis, will inevitably be reduced and therefore the whole food chain will be adversely affected. In fact ,a recent report claims that pursuing net zero could lead to half the world suffering from starvation.
Is this why every government in the world is so intent on achieving net zero?
In addition to the fake ‘climate crisis’ we now have the fake ‘nitrogen crisis.’ Nitrogen is one of the main elements of commercial fertilisers and is an essential nutrient for plant growth but at excessive amounts can be a pollutant and, according to the climate crisis zealots, can cause global warming. The EU’s, Integrated Nutrient Action Plan aims to reduce nitrogen fertiliser by 20%. The UN want to reduce all nitrogen ‘waste’ by 50% by 2030.
Some of the people targeted by the plan to reduce fertiliser usage are the Dutch farmers. The tyrannical government in the Netherlands plans to compulsorily purchase up to 3000 farms in order to reduce nitrogen emissions and to cut cattle by 50%. As the Netherlands is the biggest food exporter in Europe it won’t just affect the Dutch but have a devastating impact on the food supply in the rest of Europe.
But, is there actually a nitrogen crisis? Just like the so-called climate crisis, the evidence is ambiguous at best but the statistics are manipulated by those in power to suit their own ends.? It’s not as if they aren’t aware of the consequences of drastically reducing the use of commercial fertiliser, they only have to look at Sri Lanka. Food prices rose by 80% and there were massive shortages resulting in thousands of desperate people laying siege to the president’s palace and the president having to flee the country.
So, analysing current events, is it all just due to a set of unrelated circumstances that there appears to be a threat to the availability and cost of our food, or is there something more disturbing going on?
In this respect, it may be worth noting that as farmland is being forcibly sequestered from farmers, Bill Gates is now the single biggest owner of farmland in the USA. As the elite are trying to reduce meat consumption, Bill Gates has investments in synthetic meat? As the USA suffered severe baby formula shortages, Bill gates had invested in artificially produced breast milk. It would certainly appear that the elite are determined to monopolise and therefore control the food supply.
Other events would tend to indicate a planned assault on the food supply. In the US, since 2021, 96 facilities involved in food production have either been damaged or had their poultry or livestock destroyed. Numerous websites are suggesting this is a deliberate attempt to cause food shortages.
The destruction of food processing plants is not limited to the US, however. In the UK fires have broken out at facilities in Ealing, Gillingham, Bury St Edmunds, Bradford, Stoke-on-Trent, Harlow and Kilkeel, Northern Ireland. In fact, it appears to be a global phenomenon.
In addition to this, we have the UK and other governments deliberately ordering the slaughtering of millions of poultry due to alleged outbreaks of bird flu. Supposedly there have been 174 outbreaks of bird flu in the UK since October 2022 but how are these cases confirmed? They are diagnosed using PCR tests that we know from the covid era are totally unreliable and, according to their inventor, should not be used for diagnostic purposes. On the subject of covid, the world’s government’s imposed lockdowns also had a negative and totally foreseeable impact on the food supply chains.
Recently, UK supermarkets suffered from shortages of an ever-expanding list of fresh fruit and vegetables. The media initially tried blaming it solely on adverse weather in Spain and Morocco from where we import the produce. However, other reports have suggested it is also because UK farmers, who grow their produce in greenhouses, can’t afford to heat them because of the high cost of fuel. It’s interesting, therefore, that the government has been giving famers lump sum payments to leave farming altogether and to give up their land so it can no longer be used for agricultural purposes – thereby reducing the amount of land available for food production - when they could have been offering more financial help to farmers and food producers to increase our food security.
We must also ask why the energy costs are so high to begin with. Contrary to the mainstream media blaming it and everything else on the war in Ukraine it is because of our obsession with net zero and our government’s own policies. We have been drastically reducing our coal production and planning to close all coal-fired electricity plants by October 2024, and no longer encouraging any investment in fossil fuels. Instead, we are relying evermore on the totally unreliable renewables sector.
Our coal production dropped by 44% between the third quarter of 2021 and the third quarter of 2022 but our imports increased by 34%. So, the government are deliberately reducing our own coal supplies to reach net zero targets whilst importing more to make up the shortfall, making a mockery of their environmental claims whilst ensuring the British public pay more for their energy. For the same period, gas exports increased by 369% so, why wasn’t this used domestically instead to reduce the soaring energy bills everyone, included, food producers, faced last year? Moreover, our electricity exports increased by 771% and yet we were being warned of potential blackouts and electricity bills for both businesses and households were exorbitant.
The cost of energy is inextricably linked to the price of food as high energy costs for the farmers and transporters equals high food prices and now, shortages. At this point it is worth highlighting another quote form Henry Kissinger –
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
The question must be, are all these events that are negatively impacting the food supply being orchestrated? Perhaps a recent paper published by Leeds University may be enlightening. It is entitled, “Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation.”
In it, the authors suggest that rationing of both food and fuel would be helpful to prevent climate change. They praise how successful rationing was during the war and believe it would be a great idea to re-introduce it. They admit, however, that the public are unlikely to go along with this idea if they think resources are plentiful.
“A skeptic might challenge our arguments, arguing, ‘the evidence from the two world wars might show that people are willing to accept rationing, when this was a response to scarcity, but they will not accept rationing when there is an abundance of resources available.”
So, what do the authors suggest? If there is no actual scarcity of resources then the illusion of scarcity of something else must be created and, that, they claim are carbon sinks. There are not enough of them, apparently. So, we won’t be permitted to use all our resources, not because they are not plentiful, but because our planet cannot absorb the carbon produced by humans utilising them.
The authors realise that the public will need to be re-educated to believe in this fake scarcity–
“Rationing in this context may require a public information campaign to help people to recognize the scarcity of carbon sinks, to make it clear that we would not be introducing rationing-in-the-face-of-abundance.”
And they will also need to make us feel guilty.
“Second, this may also need to be supported by moral argument – highlighting the moral imperative to consider future generations or at least the current younger generations.”
It sounds suspiciously like the behavioural psychology from the covid era. This time, though, instead of making us believe that that covid was going to kill everyone and we must comply in case we kill granny, they want us to believe that carbon dioxide will kill everyone and if we don’t comply, we will kill young people.
Of course, their plan would be made a lot easier if the government actually created a real scarcity in the first place, which is what they go on to suggest. They want the government to close all coal mines, stop all oil exploration and severely restrict any sale of fossil fuels. They admit that this will cause scarcity and it will be a problem initially –
“Given that these policies would result in scarcity, this might still be hard to sell.”
To overcome this, they suggest the government resort to the usual propaganda about saving the lives of future generations and eventually the gullible public will buy it. Then rationing could be implemented -
“While regulation created the scarcity, rationing would manage the scarcity – and, as we have argued, rationing has proved its effectiveness in managing scarcity.”
They also advocate deliberately creating food shortages –
“In addition to stricter regulations on fossil fuels, regulation could also target other areas. For example, carbon-intensive farming methods and factory-farmed livestock could be banned – which would clearly have impacts on food supplies.”
Does this not sound more like our current reality than a mere suggestion for the future?
In Part 3 we will examine how vaccines are causing fertility issues.