1981 French Jacques Attali on how to reduce the population Eugenics 101

Jacques Attali was Counsellor to French President François Mitterrand and by his own words is/was what most would consider someone pushing and thinking about eugenics . There are people today who think and believe the same way as the dear old Frenchman Jacques and would off many of us if given a chance.... Hummm ....The eugenics road map has been around for a very long time all they need is just a way to implement the grand plan.

”The Future Will Be About Finding A Way to Reduce the Population” | Jacques Attali

Jacques Attali | Counsellor to French President François Mitterrand and was the first head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

”The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population. We start with the old, because as soon as they exceed 60-65 years, people live longer than they produce and that costs society dearly. Then the weak, then the useless that do not help society because there will always be more of them, and above all, ultimately, the stupid.


it doesn’t matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and stupid will believe in it and seek treatment. We will have made sure that treatment is in place, treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots then takes care of itself: You go to the slaughter by yourself." Jacques Attali (1981)

www.changeexchangehealth.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

This certainly sounds familiar.

a reply to: 727Sky

Ohhh God....not this again.

Before we get into what he said and what he didn't say, get me the exact page from the book and the translation.

I'll be the first to let you know that the only two sentences that come close to your (ahum) quote are:

"But as soon as we pass 60/65 years, man lives longer than he produces and then costs society more”

and

“it is much better that the human machine stops suddenly rather than deteriorating. gradually”

a reply to: keukendeur
Not saying the translation in the OP is correct or incorrect, but why should we trust your translation more than someone else's?

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: keukendeur
Not saying the translation in the OP is correct or incorrect, but why should we trust your translation more than someone else's?

reply: BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!!!

a reply to: Klassified

Because we already did this one...

Look you don't have to like the guy but it does help if you know what the book is about and what this guy is up to.

Jacques Attali is a economic and social theorist, he makes prediction on demographics, economics etc

This particular "quote" is all about a journalist asking him the question what would happen if people would live to the age of 120 because of our growing quality of care and technology.

He predicts that it would cause a huge problem if people retire at half their expected lifetime.

The cost of care and the amount of unproductive members of society would be too big to sustain.

He predicted that people of the future would have to struggle with this and that perhaps euthanasia would be an solution.

That's about the gist of it...take from it what you want.

Here's a lecture of the guy. If you can cut through the thick French accent it is a pretty interesting watch...



But at the end of the day, he is just predicting the future based on data he sees.

a reply to: keukendeur
I get it. You're saying he is misunderstood and not the eugenicist he's made out to be by some. I honestly know nothing about the man, but I will...

a reply to: 727Sky

This gives me pause to think particularly a couple of statements - that I'm certain by the sworn testimony above of our colleague are improperly translated because they said so.

Honestly, I don't find the quotes to "feel" credible on the surface. But it wouldn't surprise me if they are at least on some level accurate in content if not in context.

Now, Snopes (and I have as much confidence in Snopes as I do in CNN, which is to say I'm inclined to believe the opposite of anything they claim) does make the statement that "In summation: Attali has spoken about the possibility of euthanasia becoming a tool for future societies, but he has not advocated the mass killing of elderly people." Well, that's assuring; he hasn't advocated mass killings, but he's spoken about it being useful." I feel better ...

Anyway, some of these quote bring up something I've thought about. If there is a movement to reduce world population, it does seem that the best way to go about it would be to target the simple-minded who will just do as they are told without question or reason.

The following statements seem to make sense from a practical point of view;

The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population. ... above all, ultimately, the stupid.

and ...

"the fearful and stupid will believe in it and seek treatment. We will have made sure that treatment is in place, treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots then takes care of itself: You go to the slaughter by yourself."

If I were going to depopulate the planet, I'd not want to be left with the idiots. Take, as an example, the process of culling deer by hunting. Many hunters want the big beautiful buck as a trophy, but this is really a stupid way to think. Proper conservation would make you seek out the weaker, the older, the genetically disadvantaged. A buck with poor conformation, with twisted antlers, one that is slower mentally or physically would be the one you should kill. The stronger, better built and smarter bucks will make for a better gene pool for reproduction.

Likewise, if the idiots and dolts all run to be injected and what many of us expect to happen over the next couple of years does, then the ones left behind will be those who were too smart to be deceived. These would likely be more capable of surviving, taking are of themselves. These are the ones that would be more successful in a culled and drastically reduced population.

Modern society has circumvented the process of natural selection for far too long. Many have prospered and reproduced who, in generations past, would have likely eliminated their own selves from the gene pool. We've made it easy for morons to survive.

I've often thought - rather cynically, granted - that Donald Trump's promotion of the death shots is aimed at that end with the elimination of idiots in mind. Don't think that I believe that the people driving the depopulation agenda (and it [b[is real) have any altruistic motives. Nope! But logic is logic and good sense is good sense. I'm not saying that their plans are a a good thing.

According to several sources (incl. NYT and Bloomberg), over 5.2 billion deathjabs have been administered, amounting to 69 doses per 100 people worldwide, but only about 2.1 billion people have been "fully vaccinated." (This figure incidentally, gives me a little hope.) They are really needing to step up their culling game.



:

The level of effort put into to making people truly believe that something can be "stopped" with masks and fake vaccines that is not even in the ballpark of Aids (not even in the ballpark parking lot) is absolutely a facade and sham. It can't be stopped, never will be stopped and will continue to mutate and harm the weak and ignorant who refuse to take care of their bodies and accept reality.

There is no stopping it. The only thing being stopped is personal freedom, free speech and the ability to question governments. That is the only thing being jake braked but even that has failed. People are FINALLY waking up. All it really did in the end was create the "liberties" of the Magna Carta where people said screw it. We will have two systems; the globalists system and the free market system outside the walls of the castle cities that are nothing but a guild of criminals and thieves.

a reply to: keukendeur

Yes, again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sounds like you researched this Kissinger of France quite well.

Didn't he predict the fall of the US Empire before the end of the ninth form of capitalism, estimated to take place around 2035.? Something along those lines.

a reply to: incoserv

Wow. That was some next-level reasoning. Great post! Thanks?

a reply to: keukendeur

“The cost of care and the amount of unproductive members of society would be too big to sustain.

He predicted that people of the future would have to struggle with this and that perhaps euthanasia would be an solution.”

Yes. The Final Solution.

And yet, we’ve seen how in places that allow euthanasia of the elderly, at their request, inevitably morphs into something more. The Netherlands was the first country in the EU to allow euthanasia (‘mercy killings’) of the elderly, if that’s what the patient wanted. Then came the political pressure for the elderly to off themselves as a favor to the rest of us. Then came the laws that allowed handicapped children to be put down.

This isn’t a ‘European thing’, either. Oregon was the first state in the U.S. to allow euthanasia of the elderly—“Death with Dignity” act. Last I heard, Oregon (like the Netherlands) now allows handicapped children [you know, Hitler’s “useless eaters”] to be put down like a dog at the pound. Of course, there are formalities. The parents, in consultation with their doctors, will make the decision.

What I’m interested in is this: when it comes to a widespread, heavily promoted, NATIONAL policy of euthanasia, who gets to choose those who are deemed “useless eaters”?

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

'mkay...so here we are again.

This isn't about a misquoted French theorist, it's about your wild, delusional, misinformed fear of something you clearly only barely understand.

cool.

I am Dutch and I know about this euthanasia (‘mercy killings’) of the elderly. Wanna know who actually fought for that right?

Exactly...the elderly and not for the reason of "making way for the younger generation" but simply because some people feel that life at a certain point is done and they do not want to wait for a slow or degrading death.

The killing of handicapped children is totally new to me (unless we are talking about children in a vegetative state in which I completely agree that the parents are the ones who should have to right to make such a horrible decision) but I would love to see your sources for that claim.

Now you reply to me with catch phrases like "The Final Solution" while that has nothing to do with either the topic of the OP or the diatribe that is your latest post.

But I get it, it sounds catchy, gives it that Nazi eugenics concentration camp vibe...sets the mood for whatever parallel you are trying to make.

When in reality this is nothing but a prediction for the future which, from a logical standpoint, is something that needs to be considered. By 2035 the population will be about 9 billion, that's a predictable trend. By 2035 the population will have a higher average life expectancy, that's a predictable trend...

Maybe reproduction will be regulated, maybe we'll start a big war and drop a couple of billion or maybe we should just ignore the trends and stick our head in the sand.

Whatever floats your goat

a reply to: 727Sky

news.ucr.edu...

The "war on climate change" has always been about population control. Third world country population control, to be more precise. Black and brown skinned people to be even more precise.

Ever wonder why the majority of pollution comes from a small handful of companies, but all the efforts to thwart climate change are directed at the consumer?

Remember when grocery stores bagged your groceries in paper bags, for free? Now they charge you for bags?

Those paper bags are 100% recycled, and recyclable. AND biodegradable.

Yet they bag your stuff in plastic now, you have to specifically ask for paper unless you're at a place like trader Joe's.

Consumers make up such a small percentage of the pollution "causing" "climate change" that even if we were all to change our habits, it would have no effect on the climate.

It's all about control.