People with wealth, power, and influence say many things. Of those things, some seem to come up more often than others, namely:

1- Overpopulation is our biggest problem

2- CO2 is pollution, and climate change is bad

3- GMO’s are safe and can feed more people

4- Vaccines will make you healthy

5- Wireless radiation isn’t harmful

6- Nuclear energy is green energy

7- There are no conspiracies

8- Did I mention overpopulation?

Based on the initial premise that there are too many people on the planet; do you think that the powers that be would suggest doing anything which would make that problem worse? Why implement plans that make the biggest problem bigger? So the rest of the things on that list should not help increase the population, should they? In fact, all of those things will actually reduce the population, as they should; given that over-population is such a problem.

It would be akin to saying that despite the fact that nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to mankind and must be eradicated, we need more nuclear weapons to keep us safe. No, wait, that’s a bad example. It would be like saying that we must find a cure for cancer, and then spend most of the money to research treatment options. Scratch that, another bad example. Like self-regulating financial industries… no. Like we need more debt to pay our debts… no. Oh, like more security means less freedom… no, no, no. Ok, so these aren’t the best examples; but you get the gist, right?

Well, the truth of the matter is that the narratives are becoming hopelessly intertwined.

Statements like: ‘Now, vaccines have a role to play in climate change, too.’ and ‘Moreover, lowering the earth’s albedo would be a benefit in the field of preventative health care.’ and ‘Abiotic GMO crops will grow anywhere, despite an increase in droughts, flooding, insects, and disease brought about by climate change.’ are becoming more prevalent. It is all fear-mongering in an attempt to cover the true intentions of reducing global population.

But why reduce? If doubling global CO2 levels could double the crop yields, we could grow more food and feed more people, right? Well, as it turns out, we already grow enough food; but we prefer to let it rot in the fields rather than to increase the global supply and ship it to needy folks as this would bring down the price of food. Just look what is happening to the price of oil. The truth is that we have no intention of feeding the poor despite what is being said by the UN, the IMF, the WHO, and the World Bank. So what are GMO’s doing in our food, then?

Due to the growing wealth gap, the long-constant ratio of rich to poor is hitting an all-time high. The upper class has never before felt so out-numbered. Never before has there been so much greed. Even the Rothschild’s have famously said to leave ten percent for others. If you take it all, the people will revolt. Now that they have taken it all, as well as dropped the quality, and cut the service, and automated the factories, they are starting to realize that there is nothing left to take, and that the people have nothing left to lose. Cue the security state. Some poor people are forward-thinking enough to have a bug-out plan, but all of the wealthy people have one already.

Even the language has changed to fit the situation. The argument went from being about global cooling to global warming to climate change depending on what the models were outputting, and depending on what needed to be accomplished in the global debate over population growth.

More later…


See this article from the Toronto Star to experience the juxtaposition of the different (and differing) arguments about this tragic story and to witness firsthand how the rhetoric is being cross-pollinated.

And see this junk article by Mother Jones, as mentioned in another post.

And now this.