5th Column Subversion of US Military to Distribute COVID Bioweapon 'Prototype Injectables'...

a reply to: McGinty

I don’t know where the death cult gets their info but following current trends we face a population decline crisis in the west over the next century. Without African immigration Europe will have a lower population in 2100 than it did in 2000. Refuting the rest of your points as they’re based on a lie.

a reply to: Grenade

Then the world has changed a great deal since i travelled round it 20 years back. Many places were struggling under the weight of resources needed. If that's now flipped and those places are now not overpopulated and doing far better with falling mortality, higher living standards all round then that's marvellous news. I'm also relieved cos it means there's no motive to depopulate, in fact it sounds like the opposite would be the desire of an NWO, so the conspiracy theories are debunked. Excellent

a reply to: Xtrozero

You're absolutely right to quote those stats. I'm simply not sure i can believe their validity, or at least their meaningfulness over, say 100 years. Like i said it's a bumpy graph, but imo it's always going to rise over a large enough time scale, sans black swans. So i'm not saying you're wrong - indeed you are correct as things stand according to those numbers.

And let's not forget the ever wise words 'There are lies, damned lies and statistics'. So i'm gonna stick with the unsustainable mess due to numbers that i saw when travelling, rather than what the stats say and i'll be more than happy if i'm wrong

originally posted by: McGinty

You're absolutely right to quote those stats. I'm simply not sure i can believe their validity, or at least their meaningfulness over, say 100 years. Like i said it's a bumpy graph, but imo it's always going to rise over a large enough time scale, sans black swans. So i'm not saying you're wrong - indeed you are correct as things stand according to those numbers.

I think China will do another child referendum, but instead of the 1 child rule, they will say all women need to have 2 to 3 children.

For example, back in the 90s, a house in Japan was a million+ for a little crappy house. They had 100-year loans where when the parents passed on the kids took over, and you saw many generations under one roof. Today you can buy a house for 80K or even less if you promise to live in it supporting the local community, so once outside the big cities prices drop big... same in many countries now in EU. This is information from friends who live in these places. I have a friend who says in Greece you can get a little house near the ocean for like 60k a little out of the way but nice and a great place to spend the summer.

originally posted by: McGinty

Then the world has changed a great deal since i travelled round it 20 years back. Many places were struggling under the weight of resources needed. If that's now flipped and those places are now not overpopulated and doing far better with falling mortality, higher living standards all round then that's marvellous news. I'm also relieved cos it means there's no motive to depopulate, in fact it sounds like the opposite would be the desire of an NWO, so the conspiracy theories are debunked. Excellent

One thing we need to look at is before 1965 we were seeing an average of 5 to 6 kids per woman worldwide. Back in the 40s when economists projected that level of growth they were looking at 30 billion people on the planet by 2030 and that is what started the whole eugenics discussion. This is outside of all the "damned lies and statistics" Then around 1965 things started to change and every year since then the birth rates have been dropping.

If you would like to read a good book, then read Superfreakonomics. It is by two economists who said the drop rate is all based on income and high birth rates are seen in poverty-stricken areas, and as people enter middle-class kids stop being free labor and start to be a liability, so people have less and less.

All this was years ago and didn't take into account the added social norms of today where young people do not want to get married or have kids based on other interests even if they can afford kids.

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Hi ATS,
the power brokers of the Western world - to accomplish their long-term aims of taking full control of & depopulating this world, absent any consideration of true morality.

Trying to look at the state of the planet objectively, with detachment - slow but accelerating destruction of its resources and ecosystems - I can see the cold logic of depopulation. All of the problems future generations face would be dramatically lessoned, some eliminated by a dramatic reduction in humans.

Until we can control our reproduction numbers responsibly as a species we remain a virus on the planet, exhausting the host’s resources in the hope that before they’re gone we can spread to other planetary systems in order to find new hosts to feed upon until they too die.

That is a dark, unforgiving view of humankind. But it’s an honest one. If there are indeed aliens observing us then I believe it would be like a superior life form observing a virus in a Petri dish. Whether they make contact and attempt to assist us would surely only come if they first observe that we’re not a viral threat; that given the keys to the ufo we will not spread uncontrolled, filling planets with more overpopulation and the misery and famine, pestilence and wars that always follow.

So, while I do not share their means I can understand the motives of those who may hypothetically be attempting to depopulate planet earth with, ironically, a virus.

I believe that the biggest threat to humankind is overpopulation. Some will argue that certain data shows this is not happening. I’ve done a lot of travelling and imo whatever data may show I’ve seen many cities bursting at the seems and full of poverty, hunger, misery and death thanks to sheer numbers.

Now project forward… while in some places birth rates fall that is just a bump on the graph. It’s clear that over millennia populations have grown exponentially, despite bumps along the way. A hundred years from now despite those bumps I’ve no doubt that sans black swan events they’ll be exponentially more people on planet Earth than there are now. All using resources requiring a huge upscale in manufacturing. All creating far more waste and destruction than we see now.

If humans can’t learn to reproduce responsibly, in a controlled way then what we see now is just the start of our problems, not the end, not even midway.

But needless to say trying to eliminate that problem in one fail swoop is a fools errand. It will just delay the problems as the cycle begins again. Moreover, who wants humanity to survive anyhow if it means we must become the kind of cruel, ruthless, morally devoid species that could do such a thing?

These lessons and new habits we have to learn will take time. As generations are born we need to educate all and unfortunately police reproduction until care and responsibility are ingrained - hopefully with more transparency and fewer casualties than the Chinese policy. If we’re lucky numbers will come down slowly, but soon enough to narrowly avoid turning earth into a wasteland and warning to visiting aliens what sheers number can do to a species.

This is all very spot on IMO.

Consider this…

How many people provide zero (or near zero) value to society, and/or actively distract from society either by criminal behavior or simply living off the dole?

A LOT.

These costs show up in so many ways -largely from the above mentioned demographic. Whether it’s via tax dollars, insurance rates going up, crime rates going up - all of those things.

At some point, the benefit of their cheap labor is outweighed by some combination of the cost vs. PITA factor vs. broader impacts. That means when your insurance rates go up, your taxes go up, etc. it’s to take care of those who won’t take care of themselves (big difference between won’t and can’t).

That problem will only get worse as technology improves. Skilled trades aren’t safe at scale, either. Truck drivers, warehouse workers, grocery store employees, etc. will see a dramatic headcount reduction.

You eventually will get severe competition amongst low/moderate wage workers for the fewer and fewer jobs that need them. That will turn into chaos.

De-population is a fascinating subject as it’s the inevitable outcome either be design or natural evolution - and there’s way more to it than most people seem to be willing to analyze.

Note, I say the above from an academic standpoint, and no, it doesn’t mean instantly wipe billions of people off planet.

Aside from the useless eaters listed above, we haven’t even touch on the wealth transference from the boomers to the next generations, environmental impacts, impacts of cost of goods and services, etc.

There’s a lot to unpack, if you look at it from an objective perspective.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Grenade

Then the world has changed a great deal since i travelled round it 20 years back. Many places were struggling under the weight of resources needed. If that's now flipped and those places are now not overpopulated and doing far better with falling mortality, higher living standards all round then that's marvellous news. I'm also relieved cos it means there's no motive to depopulate, in fact it sounds like the opposite would be the desire of an NWO, so the conspiracy theories are debunked. Excellent

Exactly.

If you’re the Uber wealthy and powerful, you want:

- people 70+ to die and transfer their wealth (economic activity increased).
- The drug addicted, mentally handicapped, and delinquents to be gone.
- The homeless to be gone.
- the masses to use less of everything.
- More automation and less human labor.
- Encourage economic participation by non-white or Asian people.
- Ensure fewer, and the “right” people are having kids.

What’s left in 20 years is a much more functioning world than we have now.

Those points explain the:

- COVID situation et. all
- The fentanyl “crisis”
- D&I initiatives
- LGBTQ+ et. all
- crime in large cities
- the homeless “crisis”

The political aspect of these changes is also big.

It makes me see the “great reset” may mean something different entirely - it will be a change from many perspectives.

a reply to: McGinty

Exactly, when you travelled. The overpopulated messes aren’t in the west, and we face a rapid decline in population on the horizon. The problem lies in places like Africa and Asia, and so should be addressed in those areas. The majority of the Western world that cares so much about population control is already below replacement level.

a reply to: VulcanWerks
I agree, but it’s nothing to do with a lack of resources to provide for the population and more to do with the monopoly of those resources into fewer and fewer hands.

There is a lot of talk about surplus energy economics ie. debt as payment now for future energy, money/prosperity as a claim on good and services produced with surplus energy explaining the global engine needs a new source of cheap, on demand, portable, taxable, subsidy-free energy of the correct types to run modern industrial civilization. On the other hand, you have conservatives and free-energy people derailing discussion on ECOE due to abiotic oil, Malthus, 200-300 years of oil and natural gas in the US etc. Why are we boiling oil out of sand? Simply permitting and regulations?

The new buzz phrase is: peak affordability, declining prosperity as a result of increasing energy cost of energy, debt/financial schemes, issues of complexity, hubris/incompetence, hair-brain regulatory and political schemes.

You will see the term "Degrowth" being thrown around as a solution to over-population and the affordability and environmental crisis although few energy skeptics can admit that the Covid operation and Climate Change/Net Zero are the "noble lie" achieving uninformed consent of the population towards this end. They espouse Limited authoritarianism perhaps through behavior nudging, targeted messaging, narrative control and incentives and this is a perfect description of the Covid + Climate operation in real time.

Dr. Martin's expose on ModeRNA formerly known as Darwinian Chemical System complements the info on DOD OTA contracts superseding FDA/Regulatory oversight because DCS was originally formed to re-write DNA post ELE. My theory is that Operation Warpspeed followed by the Ukraine War with economic sanctions is 1-2 punch to reset the economic and energy system to create regional energy and trade blocs with global governance model ahead of a plotted geological and/or celestial events. The Covid + Climate operation with mass testing and IQ/compliance tests are intended to mitigate peak affordability and speed up gene based cures for the Elite ahead of the population bottleneck, a Deep Impact scenario with testing, selection and rationing thru technocratic reductionism.

a reply to: Grenade

a reply to: Grenade

I’m guessing you haven’t spent a great deal of time in London in the past few years. The urban areas are quickly becoming just as stricken as many of the heaving, broken cities of Asia. Overcrowded, with infrastructure broken and poverty on the rise. Many working Londoners have to eat via food banks (free charity hand out depots, of which more and more have appeared). What I saw in those poorer nations 2 decades ago is now becoming mirrored in the west. Another decade on this path and there’ll be no difference

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: VulcanWerks
I agree, but it’s nothing to do with a lack of resources to provide for the population and more to do with the monopoly of those resources into fewer and fewer hands.

I agree that right now we have the resources, but, we won’t forever.

I see it going like this…

Tech will advance and claim the jobs of many low/middle income people. These are your fast food workers, convenience store clerks, couriers, “delivery man”, postal workers, etc. All are an honest days work, but, they won’t be needed at the same scale.

So the “resources” will be there but the mean by which to obtain resources won’t be (jobs).

People with nothing to lose simply don’t care about a functioning society - they already are not contributing, or benefiting, from said society.

That will consolidate some resources into the hands of fewer people, but, it’s not about resources - it’s about right-sizing the global labor force for the betterment of countless millions who do contribute to society.

Here’s an example of what I mean that I encountered the other day:

I had my family in the car and they wanted something to drink before we stopped to get gas and groceries. I went into a convenience store and grabbed a few bottles of water and a Gatorade.

There were two people working in the store. I’m guessing they were both early 20s - certainly not teenagers. The female employee was morbidly obese. The male employee could have passed for a bum if he wasn’t in uniform.

I came up to check out and they were finishing a conversation as the female had taken a seat on a stool and the guy was stocking tobacco out of a box.

While I’m standing there, they are discussing being off work soon. The dude says that he’s going to go home, get “super baked” and play video games for the day - that’s it. Rinse and repeat for tomorrow.

These people represent a drain on the system. Sure, they’re working, but they likely don’t pay taxes, have little to lose, aren’t bettering themselves, and have a high probability of society needing to spend money on them - from healthcare to police services and more.

Their value add? They checked me out when I could have just used a self-checkout and been out of there faster.

If you’re these people, you absolutely need to be worried about being part of the cull. No value, resource drain, and you exist to consume drugs and play video games. You don’t take care of yourself, don’t know anything, and ultimately are a human robot that has become pacified by drugs and electronics so those who have resources can use them for labor until they aren’t needed.

Note: These people were both white. No race card here.

People of the ilk I just described can be found by the millions. It’s not a low probability that at some point in their (likely below average) lifespan that their services will no longer be required.

And then we have serious societal issues - all because we made a lot of people comfortably numb and dumb - which they gladly accepted given many alternatives exist and are given to them - until such a point they aren’t needed.

This isn’t a commentary on right and wrong, rather, it’s a pretty cold look at what is - and we see this everywhere.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks

That problem will only get worse as technology improves. Skilled trades aren’t safe at scale, either. Truck drivers, warehouse workers, grocery store employees, etc. will see a dramatic headcount reduction.

You eventually will get severe competition amongst low/moderate wage workers for the fewer and fewer jobs that need them. That will turn into chaos.

We need to understand that 50% of the population has an IQ below 100, so what this means is it is harder and longer for them to learn skills/trade. There will be many trades that AI machines will not take over, so people need to focus on those areas where they need to learn a skill/trade and do it basically for life, like a plumber. One larger issue right now is the number of fully capable workers between 25 and 54 males that just decided they do not want to work and as you suggest live a crappy life off the dole, and in the States it is estimated at 7 million and growing. There are 10+ million open jobs out there too.

De-population is a fascinating subject as it’s the inevitable outcome either be design or natural evolution - and there’s way more to it than most people seem to be willing to analyze.

Note, I say the above from an academic standpoint, and no, it doesn’t mean instantly wipe billions of people off planet.

As I said in a previous post, we are depopulating just fine all by ourselves without any help needed. Even back in the 80s, I took a population class and the main reason for the increase in population is longer lifespans and not due to more childbirths. We will hit a critical point in the near future where the retired class will greatly outnumber the working class. Looking at Japan, for example, in 1970 the median age was 28, today it is 50 as kids are not being born at the level to offset the needed working class. What this means is we will see the retirement age moved to 77 or even higher if people are capable of working still.

The problem is we would need to see average life spans reduced by 20 years to get to those lower billion numbers.

originally posted by: Grenade

Exactly, when you travelled. The overpopulated messes aren’t in the west, and we face a rapid decline in population on the horizon. The problem lies in places like Africa and Asia, and so should be addressed in those areas. The majority of the Western world that cares so much about population control is already below replacement level.

Africa still has a lot of growth as it is only at 1.3 billion and we don't see major improvements anytime soon. In Asia much is on the road to depopulation with China and Japan being critical. Even India is now below 2.1 births per woman, but China and Japan are like 1.2... The median age in Japan is now 50 and in China is 39, but rapidly growing as we see with ages 0 to 20 are 20% more males than females.

The size of the population combined with the quality of living is a matter of national security and must be lowered to an appropriate size and then its a matter of national security that we create the same control system as China for "security" reasons and to maintain a competitive advantage with our enemies or we will fall behind, hence lowering the population and making the remaining population live in smart cities, use cbdcs, monitor all activity 24/7, digital ID, and social credit.

How do they lower the population without anyone realizing and slowly over the course of 5-10 years?

originally posted by: McGinty

I’m guessing you haven’t spent a great deal of time in London in the past few years. The urban areas are quickly becoming just as stricken as many of the heaving, broken cities of Asia. Overcrowded, with infrastructure broken and poverty on the rise. Many working Londoners have to eat via food banks (free charity hand out depots, of which more and more have appeared). What I saw in those poorer nations 2 decades ago is now becoming mirrored in the west. Another decade on this path and there’ll be no difference

So what is the issue?

In 1950 England was 50 million in 2005 it was 60 million, today it is 67 million. If you subtract your immigration you would be back at 58 million, or mid 1990s, so you are not popping out babies in large numbers with a median age is 40, and I bet it would be higher if not for immigration.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

How do they lower the population without anyone realizing and slowly over the course of 5-10 years?

Let me guess, it's in the water... The problem with your model as to what you are suggesting is they need to cull the old and not the young who need to work, so did they mess up and miss the mark? Seems like the vaccine was the worst thing to do in this case where they could just let the virus clean out the older population with the younger ones OK.

a reply to: Xtrozero

List of countries by population growth rate

Declining world populations by country

a reply to: VulcanWerks

That's nothing do with a lack of resources and everything to do with their allocation.

Like i said, they don't need the labor pool for the new paradigm shift, we have the ability to sustain populations, just not the will.

a reply to: McGinty

As i said, this is due to immigration policies, the indigenous population is already in decline and the trend is accelerating.