Depopulation underpins everything.
People just seem to refuse to listen no matter what you present to them. The detail you go into and the time you take to explain makes not one iota of a difference. They simply refuse to believe it. Yet, even when it is not hidden and ‘they’ come right out and say it, STILL they will wear their masks and take their shots. They STILL think Climate Change and Covid are two entirely different issues, even now.
One really loses one’s faith in human intelligence. Why, I may say (no excuse meant) I sometimes lose my cool in my writing and ‘lash out’ at what I consider the morons and the intellectually ‘infirm’. It is because of them, I and all you who know, are tearing our hair out (and I don’t have much left as it is!).
Democracies work so well for the tyrannical because democracies are composed of a “bathtub” of intellect. The average intellect is considered to be ‘100’ which means 50% of the world’s population has less than average intelligence. I’m not even happy with ‘100’. I don’t think you’re what one would consider of decent intellect until you’re at about ‘120’. That said, does it even come down to intellect as we measure it? there are PhDs out there who have bought into this shit! That’s what astonishes me even more and leaves me speechless. “What can be wrong with this bugger’s brain?” I end up asking myself.
She speaks of the population 500 years ago. In the year 1500, the approximate population of the earth was 500 million. This is a figure which has been spoken of by many (and the Georgia Guidestones) as the optimum population.
What does it take to ‘wake’ people up?
I think (am sure) the one thing that stops people from understanding any of this is that they don’t/can’t observe it from the perspective of there being a group of very powerful people who want to inherit the earth and are willing to kill (not through war) to achieve a depopulation of the planet. They just can’t fathom that such people exist because they have not read the history of these people and their philosophy. You will never get through to most because most simply will not take this as even possible, yet it is so simple.
Have you ever been at an event of some kind or lived somewhere and found yourself being surrounded by what you considered ‘riff raff”? Be honest, now. You ‘dehumanise’ them in your mind and you feel justified in doing so due to their actions and, possibly, language. Imagine you had the power to remove them all (in some way) so you may continue to live in your area or enjoy the event on your terms.
Now apply that to the world where the world is THEIR turf and most of the 7 billion of us are the “riff raff”. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s that simple and that real.
THE NEXUS: A full explanation of the construction of ‘Covid’.
Preface: This is a LONG read. However, please do not let that put you off. It took me weeks to research and compile and days to write. It needs to be long because, to make things as clear as possible, I needed to include as many data points, through documents and articles, as possible. “Conspiracy Theorists” are consistently dismissed (very often, quite rightly) for coming to conclusions based on scant evidence and I am not one of those.
I attempt to present this in a way which can be read easily by anyone but it still requires the reader to have the patience to take the time to consider, reflect and concentrate on the many details (some course, some fine) included.
This does not go into any detail regarding anything medical wrt Covid because the fact is, such is unnecessary. If you want ‘medical’, watch John Campbell however, Mr Campbell is still tied up so much in believing everything he reads in medical journals, stats and Doctors who all speak as though “Covid 19” was real, that you will conclude that, in fact, it was real. It wasn’t!
Furthermore, you are now being led to believe in the “Lab Leak” theory. Such was considered “Conspiracy” during 2020/2021 and perhaps even 2022. What changed? Well let me explain quickly: To cover up truth, it is a well established tactic, or strategy, to ‘cloud’ an issue in multiple ‘theories’ while, for some, using ‘reverse psychology’ such as suggesting one theory, one day, is “ridiculous” and, the next day, making it ‘leak out’ and become mainstream, therefore having people believe that, while it was attempted to keep a lid on it, we “now have the truth”. But you don’t. What you have is a story, purposefully held back and then released to have you think you have the truth. Similar ‘clouds’ of purposefully planted disinformation were utilised on and after 9/11.
I am not saying the Wuhan lab was not funded by NIH and that there was Gain of Function experimentation going on. What I am saying is there was no Covid “Lab Leak” which caused an airborne pandemic. What was going on in Wuhan, in conjunction with the NIH and with North Carolina, was very probably, work on “vaccines” which carried the Covid 19 spike protein and it is that they do not want the global public to understand.
So, with that out of the way, let’s begin…..
Let me be blunt (and I’ll be somewhat more professional afterward): If anyone you show this to doesn’t get it, they’re not too bright.
Ok, now let me continue…
Once upon a time, there was a Prince who had his wife murdered because he had been in love with an old hag even well before he married the Princess but the old hag was already married plus he and his family wanted offspring with good genes. So he married the beautiful Princess who, obviously, had bad taste.
Prior to marrying the Princess and having her murdered however, the Prince was brought up in a family which considered themselves “blue bloods” unlike the riff raff they lorded it over. They had needed the riff raff as canon fodder and to mine coal and keep their lights on however so they put up with them. However, the riff raff were multiplying far too much and, frankly, due to significant advances in technology and the advent of AI (Artificial Intelligence) the family realised there was really no need for so many of the riff raff anymore and, when the Prince was a boy, he was conditioned to this same belief by his parents and, in 1968, the young Prince started in his life long crusade to deplete the planet of the riff raff who no longer played any useful role for the blue bloods.
Of course, the Prince couldn’t make his crusade public! But he searched out those within his circle who, while either part of the ‘old money’ rich or the ‘new money’ rich, held similar views as his old man who, just before dying last year, saw his dream come true: A ‘deadly’ virus to cull some of the human population.
The Prince found people like Bill Gates, Ted Turner and, of course, the Rothschild and Rockefeller clan and all their hangers on (of which there are many) but, even before Gates and Turner turned up, there were other – so called ‘malthusians’ – who felt the same such as Paul Ehrlich and Aurellio Peccei, Alexander King, Dennis and Donella Meadows, various academics and other “blue bloods”. These ‘originators’ – although the wish to depopulate goes even further back into history than 1968 – came up with a useful little ‘computer model’ courtesy of MIT (Massachusetts Institute of technology) – SHIT IN, SHIT OUT – which provided a set of graphs which demonstrated that, by 2030, the population and resources of the earth would drop dramatically. The model, while significantly criticised, is used to this day to justify the need to act. But act on what?
The model and the graphs it produced are NOT a forecast – although the malthusian set would have you believe that – but a plan.
If one has had any experience with Project/Programme management or business plans or any type of forecasting, one knows that, over time, it is a feedback loop. No plan is perfect and, over time, there are elements which do not go to plan and the effect of these elements need to be re-input to the system to adjust the anticipated output and generate a revised plan. NOT, however, in the case of the graphs generated in 1968 by the MIT scientists for the Club of Rome. They have never been adjusted since the “forecast” was, apparently, perfect.
“Limits to Growth” graph by the Club of Rome/MIT.
Again, let me repeat: These graphs were generated by a computer in @ 1972/73 – if not slightly earlier – and have never been adjusted since. That is because there is no feedback loop with new input (by, you would imagine, trying to mitigate them). In addition, the computing power they had at this time was – well, think of the “moon landing” (alleged); We are told that the Apollo computer had the same power as a pocket calculator of the 90s. It had 32Kbits of RAM and half a megabyte of ROM memory.
It is absolutely imperative to understand that all of the people working on the project, were ardent environmentalists plus they were chosen to create the model and its output/results by the Club of Rome – a group which wished to capitalise on the results while completely re-starting the world’s economic, political and social structure.
In fact, their entire ethos is written in the follow up book to “Limits to Growth” called “The First Global Revolution. In the pages before even the foreword, they quote the following verse from “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam”:
“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would not we shatter it to bits and then,
remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”
What we are experiencing, today, is the shattering of the ‘existing scheme’ as wished for by the Prince, while the ‘remoulding’ is sold to us in the slogan, “BUILD BACK BETTER”
Also in the same book, the Prince’s father – the Greek Prince who wished to return as a deadly virus no less – is quoted:
“No generation has ever liked its prophets, least of
all those who point out the consequences of bad
judgment and lack of foresight.
The Club of Rome can take pride in the fact
that it has been unpopular for the last twenty
years. I hope it will continue for many years to
come to spell out the unpalatable facts and to unsettle the conscience of the smug and the apathetic.”
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Message to the Twentieth Anniversary
Conference of The Club of Rome
Paris 1988
Now, the reader must also recognise the “coincidence” that the present Prince of Wales commenced his environmental crusade the very same year as the formation of the Club of Rome – 1968.
There are no ‘coincidences’!
Anyhow, to progress: I read, last year, the Lancet’s Chief Editor, Richard Horton, making the point that “Covid 19 is not a pandemic”, in which, he states that no vaccine will help. See here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32000-6/fulltext
He goes on to say that it is a “syndemic”. Read the link to understand what he means by that. It is very clear that “Covid 19” does not exist as a singular disease of its own. I can assure you further, that “Covid 19” does not exist at all! Why do I know that? Because I have read the entire lead up to “Covid 19” by way of an immense number of documents and articles over the last 10 years coupled with my own knowledge of the agenda which has been at play for decades. The manipulation of Covid stats, the manipulation of death certificates: Here is an example (see 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 alone):
“But my (insert father, mother, daughter, son, cousin, sister, brother, friend) died of Covid! How dare you!”
No, I’m sorry for your loss, but they didn’t. They died of an underlying issue/noncommunicable disease and, when they did, “Covid 19” was inserted on the death certificate along with 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 (and possibly others). You heard as well as anyone that all deaths (ALL deaths) within a 28 day period of a positive PCR test were labelled “Covid deaths” no matter what and you also know (or should) that the PCR tests were, and are, never meant to be used as a diagnostic plus they initially used approx 45 cycles to amplify material such that an orange, grapefruit or squirrel could test positive. Meanwhile, the media were pumping out “Covid fear” at such a rate that everyone (with few exceptions) were getting tested so the likelihood that someone had been tested 28 days prior to them dying of a motorcycle accident, was a given.
From all that has transpired since, removing people’s rights etc, if you don’t yet recognise what is going on, you’re a special kind of stupid.
They didn’t need a real pathogen or pandemic. They just needed the ‘threat’ of one and then follow that up with a pathogen in the vaccine to ‘treat’ the ‘threat’.
Richard Horton’s “syndemic” comes to life by the insertion of “Covid 19” along with deaths which would have happened anyway.
While many will never have heard of the term “syndemic” before, as you can see below, the idea was suggested, in 2013, that we may well see such in the near future. Now why would they think this? Well, it’s very simple. The “Climate Change” narrative of polar bears and ice caps along with sea level changes was not capturing the public’s and businesses attention. They needed a ‘shock’ and lo and behold, they got it! How convenient, huh? A little like PNAC in the 90s saying they needed a New Pearl Harbor.
Further, the ‘threat’ was consistently having to be put back into later and later decades (it was all meant to manifest during the 2000’s, then it was the 2010’s while now, they are saying 2040/2050’s. Why? Because it never was, or is, coming. It’s fear only and that fear is to get you to believe that they need to entirely destroy the economic, political and social fabric to then “remould it nearer to their heart’s desire.
And the world is complying just nicely!
However, due to the failure of the “speech acts” and “securitisation” of the “Climate Change threat” based upon the narrative of polar bears etc, it was imperative they conjured up another, more imminent and dramatic threat which directly impacted all of us and which could be linked to “climate change”. That was (and is) infectious diseases.
“Speech Acts and Securitisation”? What the hell are they?
Well, they are TOOLS. While they had to feed you a new narrative for “Climate Change” they also had to protect that narrative from criticism. In normal, every day politics and media, everything is up for debate. However, when something is “securitised” by a “Speech Act”, it’s like a huge padlock has been applied which disallows any counter narrative, debate or criticism or just. plain disbelief to be cited by anyone on the veracity of the fundamental narrative. Yes, you can debate masks and even the need for vaccines and whether kids should be in school etc etc etc etc. That’s all fine and why? Because you haven’t questioned the fundamental and that is what they need desperately to protect and preserve. They can deal with everything else through steering debate and providing statistics etc BUT if the fundamental was shown to be a lie, they could do none of it.
Let me put this very simply:
YOU are an audience.
THEY are the Actors.
THEY make “Speech Acts” just as an actor does on stage (they ARE on stage, effectively).
THEY need you to believe their speech act so they present you with personalities from Chris Whitty to David Attenborough and Bill Gates to Tony Fauci who they know you consider “authoritative” voices.
THEY give you Boris Johnson and the “we are at war” narrative both, to scare you and to make you think “we’re all in this together and we all have to chip in old sport”.
YOU, however, have to accept the narrative for them to then implement the measures they could never have implemented without the narrative being accepted by the public.
THEY, however, ensure you, the public, do not get the full picture nor do you get a balanced view of whether that fundamental narrative is real or not. That is why people who try to speak out are chastised and dismissed or demonised.
YOU, therefore, have accepted the narrative and acted accordingly in your compliance with the directives.
“Securitisation Theory” is a subset of International Relations.
Securitisation is a well researched, understood and used method of creating a threat out of something which may not be a threat at all. It is not, necessarily, an objective threat but is “socially constructed”. It is socially constructed by the Actor who makes the “speech act” and by the audience who accepts the ‘threat’.
Here’s a VERY simple example of a “speech act”:
You’re 16 and at school in the playground. One of your friends approaches you and whispers in your ear:
“You better deal with Jimmy right now or he’s going to get his mates together and they’re going to beat you up after school”
That is, essentially a speech act by your friend, an “actor”, and you have to decide whether you believe that narrative he’s telling you, or not. You’re the audience and you are also what is known as the “referent object” which is the object which requires protection from the impact of the “threat” which is Jimmy and his mates.
Now, the reality could be that your friend simply hates Jimmy and knows you have the potential of giving him a good beating and that Jimmy has no intention of beating you up after school with his mates. However, your friend is a “friend” and, as such, you view him as an ‘authoritative voice’ because he wouldn’t tell you a lie, would he? So you accept his speech act; Jimmy gets a pounding yet he was totally innocent. There was no conspiracy between him and his mates to beat you up.
The above is exactly what has transpired with Covid 19. There is no threat but your “friends”, Bill Gates and Boris and Chris Whitty and Prince Charles etc etc are all ‘whispering in your ear’ that Covid is going to get you because climate change is having the effect of introducing more and more infectious diseases into our lives UNLESS WE DEAL WITH IT NOW!
To further get a feel for how long this agenda has been worked on, here are a series of articles, the first from Chatham House no less – The Royal Institute of International Affairs (I hope I don’t need to explain who these people are?) dated 1st September 2019.
The issue with asking people, who just simply have no interest in learning what is oppressing them (although they may say they do but actually can’t be bothered to apply themselves to do so), to read all of this carefully is that they want short, sharp little videos on youtube or elsewhere which give them little glimpses of hypocrisy and things they can complain about and comment on with many others bleating the same way, saying how unfair everything is. What they don’t want is to have to read bland, boring detail from academic writings and have to use their FUCKING BRAIN!
Sorry, I lost the “professionalism” there for a second. I’ve calmed down now so let’s continue….
You will see from the above that “the key to this understanding of health securitisation is not the actual ‘threat’ of a pathogen but a successful speech act or narrative ‘through which an intersubjective (intersubjective means existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind. i.e the audience and the actor, together) understanding is constructed within a political community (in this case, the world population) to treat something as an existential threat to a referent object (again, the world population in this case) by a securitising actor (Bill Gates, Boris Johnson, Prince Charles, Chris Whitty et al and all their compliant media) generating endorsement of emergency measures beyond the rules that would otherwise bind, or a suspension of so-called ‘normal politics’.“
There need be no actual threat. A pathogen need not even exist. ONLY the acceptance of the speech act socially constructs the threat as ‘real’.
And all of that has been achieved through fear and an unquestioning belief in authority and that, for some reason – even though the world is well aware that politicians and the elite are deceitful scum – “our states and governments wouldn’t harm us”.
Oh yes, they would!
So, here is a New York Times article from 2012. A “baffling” nexus. Why baffling? Could it be because they had not, as yet, fully planned it all out and settled on their narrative?
So read the article and I’ll comment on the big takeaways from it below….
Well, the takeaways come in the last few paragraphs. “Public health also remains a less politically contentious subject than climate change….” which is precisely why they reframed the climate change narrative. They needed ‘buy in’ and weren’t achieving it with polar bears and ice caps, 2 degrees hotter and a rise in sea levels. People and business weren’t buying it (and neither should they). So “Covid 19” was the Public Health event of the century to be introduced as the “spoonful of (bitter) sugar to catalyse and gain support for the bitter medicine of climate change policy. A policy they knew they could never have pushed through unless the global public PERCEIVED a threat.
“Tying things that are good for sustainability to short term benefits for vulnerable kids…. a potentially strong policy motivator” which the public, in their ignorance of the agenda and belief in the constructed ‘threat’, would fully support.
And, as you can see, the introduction of the policies were a few years off while federal and state agencies got all their ducks in a row to launch it successfully.
So, from 2012 to 2018:
” With just over 10 years…. a nexus approach could unlock solutions to multiple challenges simultaneously.” It makes me laugh just how they tell you, in 2018, exactly the plan in a few words and why that ‘nexus’ was created. The ‘nexus’ of Covid 19 (health) and Climate Change”.
“But there’s one missing link the commission could add: Climate and health…..connecting the other 3”.
“Expanding the reach of the hippocratic tenet of “first do no harm” [to]… even the planet itself”.
Now, let me show you what extending the tenet to the planet itself meant:
FLATTEN THE CURVE!
But they had you believe it was a curve related to increasing virus cases and deaths while they let old people die by the thousands in care homes!
It was never a virus curve. It was the curve related to the increasing carbon emissions from the NHS itself and to “first do no harm” to the planet, they needed to flatten that curve.
I assume you heard “Her Majesty’s” Queen’s speech earlier this year? If not, have a listen….
https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/hospitalbeds:d?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf
“Patients will receive more tailored and preventative care closer to home”.
Why would that be considered as “more beneficial”? Because it reduces, dramatically, the carbon emissions associated with the NHS: Ambulances, patient and visitors using transport to and from hospital, the carbon footprint associated with the utilities (heating, gas, electric) and machines and technology needed in the hospitals, etc. All of the new measures then flattening that curve.
Is this overall picture becoming clearer for you?
To build momentum up to the introduction of “Covid 19” in 2020, they needed to ‘feed’ the health/climate nexus into both, the health community globally and also feed it into the minds of the public. The Prince, of course, and his band of merry corrupt business leaders who wanted to know what was in it for them, had to ‘negotiate’ and the latter be convinced that by hopping onboard, they’d do well out of it. That is where the Prince’s ‘Business Leadership forum’ comes into play.
For business leaders around the globe, it’s all about money, opportunity and profit while, if they don’t play ball and ‘go green’ they’ll find their businesses die because investment will be cut off to them just like if you don’t take the vaccine, you’ll be cut off. The difference with businesses is that they are non living entities while the business leaders’ entire raison d’etre is to make a profit for the business (and gain nicely, thank you, in the process). The Business leader isn’t thinking about Human Rights and, therefore, the business leader is creating a dystopia for his/her children without a care in the world.
https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/education/executive-education/bsp
“…business leaders increasingly being focused on solving problems we are facing rather than debating the cause of those problems.”
Do you see it? Clear as day once more. He doesn’t want debate on the cause because:
1. There is no consensus on the causal reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming or Man-made Climate Change.
2. If the cause was thoroughly researched (and it has been but those who are dissenting are silenced due to?…. Securitisation!) perhaps we’d find there is no cause at all because it is a constructed/manufactured threat, from which, he himself is placed to make a proverbial royal mint out of it.
Here are some examples of the ‘feeding’ of the ‘threat’ nexus of health/climate change into the intersubjective mind-space. All of it published prior to Covid:
And, from 2016:
Everything listed in the above picture was targeted (“affected” by) “Covid 19”. The policies introduced (even the culling of mink in Denmark) then morphed into policies targeting the overall. effects of “Climate Change”. There is a simple reason for that. “Covid 19” (a fake, statistical disease) was introduced into the global public consciousness as a catalyst for the “Climate Change” agenda – another fake ‘threat’.
Of course, there is a never-ending number of such but, if I continued, this post would be a book!
Now, let’s turn to Imperial College
You remember this guy?
So Neil, as you know, is an Imperial College guy. He provides models (some of which are decades old and he just re-jigs them) to all the malthusian, genocidal maniacs around the world to support their propaganda; One of which is the World Economic Forum and here, in early 2019, you can hear it stated that Neil provided the model for this simulation related to “Disease X” – the disease the WHO, the UN and all our wonderful malthusian, genocidal maniacs want to use. “Disease X” is just. a placeholder however. It is the term they use while they work on it before releasing it. You could consider “Covid 19” as being an early version of “Disease X”. Again, remember, “Covid” doesn’t exist and, perhaps, neither does “Disease X” have to. They can achieve all they wish to by other deceptive means and statistics.
All of this is pure propaganda, created to “feed the mind” with fear.
So Neil is “Mr Fear” 21st Century style (he’ll get a huge kick out of it all and seeing himself as having the power and the money which goes with it, to support and justify his genocidal masters’ wishes). However, before Neil, in the 20th century, the OG “Mr Fear” was Alexander King – AGAIN, Imperial College and a founding member of the Club of Rome.
You can decide to listen to it all or, I suggest, even the first 5 minutes of Alexander King….
IMPERIAL COLLEGE EH?
Let’s hear more from our ‘helpful’ academics at Imperial College….
So, while Neil Ferguson, today, is the “go to” guy for the virus models, other divisions of Imperial College ‘advise’ the government (and governments) of how to develop and write the right narrative for the public to instil the right type and level of fear and ‘nudge’ them into the right behaviours.
From the Imperial College paper (written 2016) “TOWARDS A UNIFYING NARRATIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE”
As far back (and even before) as 2016, they were aware of the “Action Gap”; i.e. while they had presented a narrative over decades about rising seal level and increasing temperature with dying polar bears and melting ice caps, they were not achieving any action on the part of the global public and business at large. Neither were they convincing many national governments and there was also the issue of – in democratic societies – the continuous change of leaders and governments – some supportive, some not.
So what you see above is a bunch of bullet points describing why there existed the “Action Gap”. All that ‘science’ didn’t hit the spot. So what would?
They needed that “compelling strategic narrative”. Something which resonated with the public. Something the public could see happening on their TV screens then and there. Something big and scary! A sort of “Close Encounter” with something that just might kill them. It would have to be ‘real’ though!
A little like this….
Damn! So what do we do???
We need something which will impact the consciousness of every living soul on planet earth! No single national government can have any affect on a ‘global threat’ like Climate Change so we need to create something compelling to stimulate or ‘catalyse’ every government and every last human into action. We need a catalysing event like a “New Pearl Harbor”. Now where have I heard that before?
It is difficult, so what do we do? How do we change the narrative of “climate change” to get everyone onboard?
How do we get them to appreciate how it will affect them? How can we crystallise the ‘threat’ in terms they can relate to? I mean there’s only so many people out there who care that much about the plight of the Polar Bear!
You see, the problem is that the politicians (and the IPCC scientists) all know it’s not really about ‘climate change’ and anthropogenic global warming. They know it’s about completely reinventing the global economy; creating parity between east and west (or the Global North and Global South) while, overall, reducing the consumption of resources by all except the elite and, to do that, there is the need to reduce, certainly, the growing global middle class and reduce population overall. So what Greta sees going on is actually correct (although she plays a useful part) when she says “they talk but don’t do” because the entire thing is a global negotiation – nothing more, nothing less. Zero to do with saving a planet. It is why we see the hypocrisies of masks and the hypocrisy of allowing China and the global south to still use coal and pollute. Because there IS no real climate change. You don’t negotiate terms and money if the planet is dying! You must be a total retard not to see this.
“Strategic narratives are the ‘public face’ of strategy”. What on earth could that possibly mean?
Well, it’s simple: The strategy was already in place (documented in a significant number of policy documents) to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions through policies ranging from the change from fossil fuels in aircraft, motor vehicles etc to flattening the carbon emissions of the NHS (“flattening the curve”); From attacking the hospitality industry (consumption of alcohol and the manufacturing process and ingredients of it due to its carbon footprint) to huge reductions in meat consumption.
A good chance of Victoria, Australia having been among the harshest of lockdowns, in my view, being the following:
But, to achieve the behaviour change (and operational changes within various industries) and action those policies was never going to happen UNLESS there was a cry of help from the global population. How do you create that cry of help where “polar bears” are now not the concern?
Well, over a number of years, you need to feed a narrative again and again so that it becomes part of the culturally accepted ‘landscape’. “This climate change business just never goes away! They’re teaching our kids all about it in school now. My kids are coming back home telling me how worried they are and according to all these IPCC scientists who are funded by the UN and global governments plus NGOs etc, the threat seems to be real and I can’t argue against it with my kid now, can I? Perhaps Prince Charles was right all this time? And look at him. He’s so nice and he continuously speaks about the future of our children and grandchildren. He obviously cares!”
And would you look at that! They’re even kind enough to include, in the document, that the “narrative is a socially constructed story, which could of course be completely divorced from reality”which, indeed it is!
So “Climate change has not been talked about in the right way”. It’s not been effective. Again, we need something far more compelling which shocks the population into action to close that “Action Gap”. Plus, the mass media is an extremely useful tool for supporting the SYSTEM’s PROPAGANDA without OVERT coercion! Not WITHOUT coercion but without coercion the public can see! Even most of the people involved in the media will not see it.
So, from the above: As you continue to see the policies rolled out over the course of the next years, remember they are supported by the narrative that “climate change” has caused them and caused the “Covid 19 disease”. They are in context with one another; They are related and they provide the “frame” which justifies (and has justified) the policies we are now seeing and that we are about to see. You now ‘understand’ why you should care about “Climate Change” since it is now more personal and the ‘tangible benefit’ is that the ‘solutions’ (policies) will appear to address the problem. You are constantly being told that your obedience and compliance in wearing masks and taking the jab is alleviating the Covid problem however, there are still those pesky “anti vaxxers” who, through their selfishness and stupidity may infect some of you and will be to blame for us having to introduce more lockdowns etc. But you know this is to protect you! We do need to deal with them, however.
Note the comments on the ‘Polar Bear’ narrative. “It’s not the planet that’s in danger, but humanity itself”. Where have I heard that before?
The Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man
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. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.
From:
And make no mistake about it, Alexander King and friends commenced, 50 years ago, the events leading up to what you are experiencing today.
Also from the book:
“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would not we shatter it to bits and then,
remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”
Omar Khayyam
In fact, that quote is the very first thing you read other than the title. You are experiencing the ‘shattering’ while COP26 and WEF negotiate the ‘remoulding’ or Build Back Better!
Now back to the Imperial document:
Regarding democracy and maintaining “choice” and “freewill” – SURE they will give you that (and are) but if your choice is not to accept “science” in the case of “Covid 19” and vaccines, social pressure and social actors will provide the ‘social cues’ to ensure the promotion of ‘good citizenship for the common good’ while offering “Your choice, your loss”. Case in point:
“If you don’t accept my view and forego all other medical intervention, which may be needed to save your life for any problem you may have at all, because you have entirely within your rights, decided to decline a single ‘vaccine’, then you are not a good citizen. Any health issue you have at all, just accept it and die”
The evil inherent within what Esther Rantzen has stated, is simply incredible but, for me, it comes as no surprise and regular readers of my blog will understand why. It is for the reason it is forbidden to state but enough to say Esther belongs to a tribe. Whether you wish to accept that as the reason why she can be so callous and evil in intent, is no concern to me.
Created like this, for instance…..
And this….
Perhaps this…?
And this?
Or what about this…. stated clearly by Johnson & Johnson:
Then the strategic narrative is consistently pumped into the public consciousness over time and, over time, the public starts to accept it….
Then comes the high level discussion and strategy toward how to frame the issue and what works and what doesn’t. They clearly do a ‘deep dive’ into the psychology behind making the messages toward the public ‘hit the mark’.
To ensure the public, then, accept the securitisation process and policies (in the public’s total ignorance that they are being fed a total deception and that their reactions and subsequent behaviour has been studied to the nth degree), the narrative is relentlessly fed to them across all sectors – media, education, government, science, ‘authoritative organisations and people’ etc. It is a continuous flow of propaganda to ensure the psyop is successful.
And BOY have they made mistakes! Their messaging is all over the place!
Read the middle paragraph above once more. And yes, the public have high expectations about the behaviour of of public agencies AND the people within them. Such as Neil Ferguson and Dominic Cummings and then all of those who attended COP26 without being vaccinated and the embarrassingly obvious “photo ops” with masks etc. That is what you get when the people trying (and succeeding because the public are entirely ignorant) to control you know the entire thing is bullshit.
“This bigger picture focus might mean that some of the strongest narratives that drive climate change might not focus on climate change for some, or multiple, audiences focusing on, for example, energy security or health co-benefits instead.”
Again, “polar bears and ice caps” just weren’t working.
When you study disinformation at this level Colley does, you know how to utilise it also. In fact, that is the entire reason of studying it!
The Imperial College document: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Towards-a-unifying-narrative-for-climate-change-Grantham-BP18.pdf
So what’s the “Nexus”?
Well, you can look at the “Nexus” from two angles:
- The Nexus wrt what it is which links Covid 19 and Climate Change in terms of overall goal(s)
- The Nexus wrt the people promulgating it and who, clearly and unambiguously, have the same goal(s) in mind.
Let’s consider number 1 first:
You will be stunned to read just how far the issue of controlling population goes. The “Gods” of philosophy: Aristotle and Plato even consider it in a time where the population of the earth was a fraction (so we are told) of today’s at approximately, 160M – 200M in Plato and Aristotle’s time of between 400BC and 300BC.
Those exact same arguments are being espoused today by the “Aristotles” and “Platos” of today.
The “Nexus” for Covid and Climate is population control and reduction. The adherents to this philosophy grasp the outdated belief (and wrong even in his own time) and ‘teachings’ of one Thomas Malthus (hence the term “Malthusian”) who simply based his reasoning on the linear growth of agricultural capability to feed the population and the exponential growth of the population itself, outstripping that capability. It was proven to be wrong in his timescale and it is wrong now. However, that “philosophy”, as I said, is still pushed by all of the supporters of depopulation for the purpose of having a form of justification of their motives and their policies.
If by fiat I had to identify the most consequential ideas in the history of science, good and bad, in the top 10 would be the 1798 treatise An Essay on the Principle of Population, by English political economist Thomas Robert Malthus. On the positive side of the ledger, it inspired Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to work out the mechanics of natural selection based on Malthus’s observation that populations tend to increase geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16 …), whereas food reserves grow arithmetically (2, 3, 4, 5 …), leading to competition for scarce resources and differential reproductive success, the driver of evolution.
On the negative side of the ledger are the policies derived from the belief in the inevitability of a Malthusian collapse. “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,” Malthus gloomily predicted. His scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics, resulting in draconian measures to restrict particular populations’ family size, including forced sterilizations.
In his book The Evolution of Everything (Harper, 2015), evolutionary biologist and journalist Matt Ridley sums up the policy succinctly: “Better to be cruel to be kind.” The belief that “those in power knew best what was good for the vulnerable and weak” led directly to legal actions based on questionable Malthusian science. For example, the English Poor Law implemented by Queen Elizabeth I in 1601 to provide food to the poor was severely curtailed by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, based on Malthusian reasoning that helping the poor only encourages them to have more children and thereby exacerbate poverty. The British government had a similar Malthusian attitude during the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, Ridley notes, reasoning that famine, in the words of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury Charles Trevelyan, was an “effective mechanism for reducing surplus population.” A few decades later Francis Galton advocated marriage between the fittest individuals (“What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly man may do providently, quickly and kindly”), followed by a number of prominent socialists such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis and H. G. Wells, who openly championed eugenics as a tool of social engineering.
We think of eugenics and forced sterilization as a right-wing Nazi program implemented in 1930s Germany. Yet as Princeton University economist Thomas Leonard documents in his book Illiberal Reformers (Princeton University Press, 2016) and former New York Times editor Adam Cohen reminds us in his book Imbeciles (Penguin, 2016), eugenics fever swept America in the early 20th century, culminating in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, in which the justices legalized sterilization of “undesirable” citizens. The court included prominent progressives Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the latter of whom famously ruled, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The result: sterilization of some 70,000 Americans.
Science writer Ronald Bailey tracks neo-Malthusians in his book The End of Doom (St. Martin’s Press, 2015), starting with Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 best seller The Population Bomb, which proclaimed that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over.” Many doomsayers followed. Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown, for example, declared in 1995, “Humanity’s greatest challenge may soon be just making it to the next harvest.” In a 2009 Scientific American article he affirmed his rhetorical question, “Could food shortages bring down civilization?” In a 2013 conference at the University of Vermont, Ehrlich assessed our chances of avoiding civilizational collapse at only 10 percent.
The problem with Malthusians, Bailey writes, is that they “cannot let go of the simple but clearly wrong idea that human beings are no different than a herd of deer when it comes to reproduction.” Humans are thinking animals. We find solutions—think Norman Borlaug and the green revolution. The result is the opposite of what Malthus predicted: the wealthiest nations with the greatest food security have the lowest fertility rates, whereas the most food-insecure countries have the highest fertility rates.
The solution to overpopulation is not to force people to have fewer children. China’s one-child policy showed the futility of that experiment. It is to raise the poorest nations out of poverty through democratic governance, free trade, access to birth control, and the education and economic empowerment of women.
However, while Scientific American admonish malthusianism, they still adhere to the idea that population is a problem! Population is only a problem because the billionaire elite class do not wish to have to share ‘their’ “Elysium” earth with the rest of us.
Meanwhile, this absolute fool, and self proclaimed gobshite, thinks (and will promote) that he’s the guy to have found out the “single major impact on climate change” within the last week or so….. the EGO of the man and yet he speaks of the egos at the BBC. He was BBC, has all those mirrors but, obviously, never looks in them! Just listen to this….
I wrote to Mr Bellend in July this year and this is, in part, what. I said to him (with zero reply or acknowledgement):
If they can (as they are) destroying the family and using the “gay agenda” to achieve it, it all helps to reduce population. The UNPF and “Population Matters” in the UK and many others are all working toward this. It is “Population Matters” which presented Harry and Meghan with the award for having just two children!
Now, I want to repeat this from January 2020:
“Would you convert to a plant-based diet to stop climate change? Have one fewer child?”
“Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies,” they wrote.
https://karmaimpact.com/shock-to-citizens-may-be-needed-as-climate-change-fight-fails-deutsche-bank-says/
| “Shock” to Citizens May Be Needed as Climate Change Fight Fails, Deutsche Bank Says – KarmaWould you convert to a plant-based diet to stop climate change? Have one fewer child? Sadly, while personal sacrifices are commendable, they haven’t been enough to curb global warming. “A big-picture holistic solution” regarding global transportation, industry and electricity generation is needed, and the necessary changes might inevitably bring economic trade-offs, suggested a Deutsche …karmaimpact.com |
Meanwhile, the “Climate Change” enthusiasts decided to “REFRAME” the climate issue as an ‘infectious disease’ issue going back as long as 2009/10 or longer because the ‘climate change’ threat was not working! There is a mountain of documentation I can point to supporting this fact.
Please understand the information is all there if you look! And that you know what to look for!
I gave him much more than the above (I will post later the entire email) but Alex has only one thing on his mind: Building his audience. While he criticises the government and the BBC etc, he obeys every rule and regulation (he will get a booster if it means he can get to Las Vegas and his strippers). Alex found himself an audience and he’s sucking it dry. A Clear Undisputed National Treasure he is, in fact.
Here’s just a few articles from prior to Covid, pointing out the obvious which Alex thinks he’s just discovered. Well HE has but the bloody arrogance in promoting he’s bringing us the news!
However, they are aware they cannot (at least until now) come straight out and say it: That they demand we have lesser children. It is political suicide (or has been) and, to an observant eye, they’ll have displayed their hand. In addition, people will look at Boris Johnson and his father (and others like them preaching their bile) and say “Ok for you with 6 kids a piece. Not walking your talk again, I see?” And the reason they don’t is because this “Climate Change” and “Covid” is not for them, it’s for you! You have got to be a special kind of moron not to have this penny drop by now!
You can read clearly, in the above that population control is a hot button! And sure it is. They have been scared to admit that this is the reality behind “Climate Change” and is, in fact, why the threat of “Climate Change” was introduced in the first place!
Even Boris admits the politicians (as he now is) are too scared to talk the real talk:
It is as clear as day so what the hell is wrong with people’s mental faculties who just cannot grasp it? The fat bastard’s own words from 2007!
What do you do when you want to stop the rise of population and, particularly, focus in on stemming the impact (and a threat to you, the ‘elite’) of a growing middle class which will demand access and use of resources that you want for yourself?
You create a “threat” which, once your audience – the global population – accepts the ‘threat’ as real, you can implement policies (and vaccine certificates) which significantly reduces the ability of that middle class to enjoy such resources.
A lot of people in the alternative media and elsewhere, are getting it all wrong. They seem to think that this ‘elite’ will shoot themselves in the foot with all this control and putting people out of work. Not at all! It is what they have now decided they want! They don’t need us. They will have AI soon (actually now but a growing presence) and putting people out of work reduces the use of resources and energy and punctures the middle class bubble.
My God! This is all so transparent and yet, even after reading this blog, the average ‘Joe’ still won’t get it. It blows my mind how mind numb the vast majority are!
So, to bring this section to an end:
The first securitised “threat” to the global state (spearheaded by, in the main, western monarchies, old dynasty money and more recent billionaires) was, in recent times (circa 1960s), raised as “GLOBAL POPULATION”.
The second securitised threat was then created throughout the 1970s and introduced to the public consciousness in the 1980s/90s and that was “Climate Change”. “Climate Change” told us that we were the problem through our use of resources based on hydrocarbons/fossil fuels and our general abuse of the earth. However, the main culprits are the very people telling you that YOU are the problem! “Climate Change” then supported the Malthusian theory and pointed (subtly and now not so subtly) toward the solution: LESS PEOPLE.
“Climate Change” however, as a ‘threat’ did not work. Yes they securitised it (and have now, post Covid successfully) but, pre Covid, the securitisation was not successful. They needed something (an event) to crystallise the ‘threat’ in the global consciousness and catalyse the climate policies. They had to change the climate narrative and they did so by aligning it with health and a global public health threat: Covid 19. This also had to be in place by 2020 as is consistently referred to in their literature.
It is then important to also understand that they did not need an actual airborne pathogen to achieve their goal however, on successfully introducing the threat of one which we, on the whole accepted, they could then start the vaccinations and it is highly likely there is a protein pathogen in the vaccines. That is where I readily admit I cannot prove this but it is unnecessary to prove it if you understand the foregoing.
So, the “Nexus” is that Covid and Climate fuse together when you realise they are both for the purposes of justifying Population Control. In addition, “Climate Change” and Sustainable Development level the global playing field economically for the globalists, between the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’. This paves the way for a global marketplace (“Economic Area”) and a global currency and governance (not necessarily ‘Government’ as such isn’t actually needed but, to a great extent, already exists through the UN, IMF WHO etc).
THREE MAJOR STEPS (OR STAGES) TO TODAY’S TOTALITARIANISM: THREE COMPUTER MODELS TO JUSTIFY EACH STEP.
The stages to Covid 19 over 50 years. The next 20 – 30 years will see the consolidation phases and it won’t be pretty.
Earthling 
leave a comment