I wrote briefly about this a few days ago, how overpopulation, famine and climate change are all a part of the same scam- to control the world by creating one global government, the UN. Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, they're all a part of the same plan- the plan laid out on the Georgia Guidestones to make the population "sustainable" at around 500 million. Seeing that there are over 7 billion people in earth, that means bad news for many of us. "Scientists" from around the world, funded by the elites behind global governance, are sounding the alarm using their manipulated data about CO2 and "greenhouse gasses." Here's an example of how they use clever wording and misdirection.
These indicators are linked at least in part to climate change. In panel (f), annual tree cover loss may be for any reason (e.g., wildfire, harvest within tree plantations, or conversion of forests to agricultural land). Forest gain is not involved in the calculation of tree cover loss.
The panels are irrelevant, I've linked the article at the bottom for anyone interested. What's important I put in bold... terms like "in part" due to climate change without ever telling us whether it's a significant part or not enough to raise concern. They also fail to factor in forest gain, an important factor as most logging operations have come to the conclusion that replanting is good for business- it gives them something to harvest 20-50 years down the line. This manipulation of data is critical to maintaining the myth of impending doom. "But in order to achieve their goals, first they are going to have to convince us that planetary disaster is imminent, and in this study, the authors boldly tell us “that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency”… "
If the elites get their way humanity will walk willingly into the furnaces... after all, scientists wouldn't lie about something as important as this would they? Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. I guess they would.
The letter focuses on six key objectives: replacing fossil fuels; cutting pollutants like methane and soot; restoring and protecting ecosystems; eating less meat; converting the economy to one that is carbon-free and stabilising population growth. The last objective is the most troubling. How far would the elites go to accomplish these goals? "Stabilizing" is merely a polite euphemism for eliminating... and there are only two ways to eliminate population growth- either less people have to be born, or more have to die. A pretty grim proposition either way you go- either increase the number of abortions or start killing people off. The elites have some interesting ideas about how this should be done. After all "... if humans are the primary driver of climate change, and if we only have about 12 years before we reach the point of no return as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has suggested, will a “gradual” reduction of the human population really be enough to satisfy the climate change zealots?"
For true believers in the cause, there would be no faster way of turning this crisis around than to radically reduce the population of the planet. According to them, every one of us has “a carbon footprint”, and as the population grows the climate change crisis only gets worse. So a logical extension of this thinking would be that anyone that can find a way to significantly reduce the global population would literally be “saving the planet”. To you and I, the idea of millions or billions of people dying is absolutely horrific, but for those that have fully embraced the climate change narrative such an outcome would be extremely desirable.
These are a few of 45 quotes from elites who advocate a drastic reduction in population, beginning (and probably ending with) Charles Darwin. After all, Darwin wasn't a scientist, he was a eugenicist.
1. Charles Darwin (his thinking is at the foundation of so many of our scientific theories today): “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Of one understands the context of Darwin's book, it was to exhort "favoured races in the struggle for survival" (favoured races being whites naturally).
2. Bill Gates: “The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it. So it’s in the very poorest places that you’re going to have a tripling in population by 2050. (…) And we’ve got to make sure that we help out with the tools now so that they don’t have an impossible situation later.”
Once again, the solution is to eliminate black and brown people. Along with the Clinton Foundation, the foundation run by Gates and his wife are under indictment for spreading bogus vaccines throughout Africa and the Indian sub-continent.
9. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso: about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”
"Hurry up and die..." has a nice ring doesn't it?
12. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”
And here we get to the crux of the elitist position "fewer people mean better lives." I wonder how many of the elites will be willing to sacrifice themselves when the time comes?
15. MIT professor Penny Chisholm: “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”
Another elite wanting to target black and brown people... I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
17. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“
"Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so." That pretty much says it all.
30. Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”
"All life is not equal." Really??? Who then gets to decide whose life is more equal than someone else's? That's really the question that has to be answered. The elites plan to set themselves up as the arbiters of who lives and who dies in order to "save Mother Earth."
32. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
"We'll just change the name of what we're doing to make it sound more acceptable." This has been SOP for abortion advocates from day-one... calling fetuses things such as "unwanted extra-uterine tissue" or "clumps of cells" for the less literate.
36. David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “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 Fascist roots of the Sierra Club finally rear their ugly head.
38. Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
At last, an honest Fascist.
And finally, we let Darwin himself have the last word:
45. Charles Darwin: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. 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. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
Well, that pretty much says it all... time to change the purpose of the medical profession from saving lives to eliminating the "unfit." We may well have found the foundation of Hitler's T-4 Program. "As you can see, this kind of thinking goes all the way back to Charles Darwin.The elite really do look down on all the rest of us with great disdain, and let us hope that their goal of dramatically reducing the size of the human population is not realized any time soon."