Ever since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracy theories have been the talk of the internet. One of the most interesting phenomena regarding the pandemic has been witnessing conspiracy theories evolve into “science,” and vice versa.
Mass confusion became so rampant that the establishment’s Department of Propaganda (i.e., Big Tech) was forced to step in and become the arbitrators of truth, establishing a non-negotiable narrative that silenced all dissenters. This resulted in an Orwellian-style censorship campaign used to combat COVID “misinformation,” which consequently divided the public into two camps: conformists and non-conformists.
Those who weren’t devout disciples of authoritarianism came to realize that this oppressive suppression of speech wasn’t actually about “misinformation,” rather it was about control of the narrative. Anyone could post all the “misinformation” they desired as long at it acted as a representative of the state’s narrative. However, even renowned experts and their empirical data have been collectively censored for simply challenging the science.
Those who boastfully tout “Science!” seem to have forgotten what makes science an acceptable doctrine of truth. Science is the acquisition of knowledge due to rigorous skepticism via the scientific method. Science and censorship are compatible only in the sense that science will act as its own censor when challenged. In layman’s terms: if the truth isn’t challengable, then it’s probably not the truth.
The establishment’s response to the pandemic proved to be a complete fiasco, which highlighted a level of systemic incompetency that no amount of damage control by the Department of Propaganda could possibly repair. Censorship never fixes problems, it always creates them. The whole of Western Civilization (perhaps excluding Sweden) illustrated to the world that radical neoliberalism (a system based on emotions and feelings) is incompatible with logic and reason.
But, maybe that’s what they wanted. Maybe the powers that be (PTB) have been co-opted by accelerationists who see the West as a dying empire, and they hope to speed up the process, with the intent to build back better. That could explain the blatant ineptitude of those making the decisions. Nonetheless, it’s almost impossible to analyze the last two years rationally without going down some type of conspiracy-driven rabbit hole.
One of the more popular COVID conspiracy theories has been the idea of population control. Whether it be with the mRNA vaccines, the “novel” virus, or a combination of both, there are literally millions of people who believe the pandemic was a “plandemic.” In fact, according to a recent poll, 1 in 5 people think the COVID pandemic is a “depopulation tactic”:
Amid a disturbing rise in the number of conspiracy theories taking root in the US population, a new poll has found that nearly one in five people believe that the coronavirus pandemic is a “depopulation tactic”.
Conspiracy theorists cite things like, WEF’s Great Reset plan to “build back better,” Bill Gate’s 2017 admission that vaccines are designed so governments can depopulate the world, or that the virus itself was man-made and intentionally released from a Chinese lab with the purpose of killing millions of people, as sources to justify their theories.
Regardless of how you feel about the pandemic and/or the conspiracy theories that surround it, there is no denying that there are powerful people who believe the earth is overpopulated. That is essentially the underlying agenda of the “climate change” crowd. Obviously, they aren’t going to come out explicitly as depopulationists, any more than diversity advocates are going to openly endorse White genocide. But, where there’s smoke there’s fire. Anyone who believes humans are destroying the planet are going to be de facto depopulationists to some degree.
In practical terms, the concept of depopulation is an equation of implicit actions resulting in explicit changes that are factored exponentially over a period of time. Assuming the official COVID numbers are accurate, we are currently at 6 million deaths (80% of those over 65) on a planet with 7 billion people. That means 0.08% of the planet’s population died from COVID over a two-year period. Yet, during that same time period, 280 million people were born. This illustrates the mathematical complexity depopulationists are faced with, and perhaps the irrationality of the “conspiracy.” However, that doesn’t necessarily debunk depopulationism as an ideology, nor pragmatically from an eugenics perspective.
The fear that has driven the pandemic has been the notion that nobody knows who will get serious disease. Some people get sniffles, while others are placed on a ventilator. Just because the reasoning isn’t known to the public (or even the “experts”) doesn’t mean the reason isn’t known. If this virus was created in a lab (most think it was), it could be designed to attack a certain genetic sequence, that appears to infect people randomly, when in fact it doesn’t.
To the naysayers who might respond with, “if they wanted to implement population control measures, they could just start another world war and kill off millions of people.”: The only way that happens is with nuclear war, and all parties involved know that’s suicide. Technology and the nuclear weapon has eliminated the possibility of large scale ground wars. The idea that the world could just deploy armies of men to a battlefield and have them shoot each other until 100 million die is completely irrational. If there were to ever be another world war, it would be the last war. All future conflicts will be in the realm of 4th generation warfare, which will be technological, biological and asymmetrical. This type of warfare will be more efficient, controllable, eco-friendly and profitable (the world’s 10 richest men doubled their wealth during the pandemic).
From an ethical point of view it should be noted that this idea that the PTB wouldn’t release a bioweapon capable of killing millions of people on the premise of “they care about us so much” is both disingenuous and naive. The people in a position to make these kind of decisions are primarily comprised of two personality types: sociopaths and justifiers. These are the same people who have sacrificed the lives of hundreds of millions of young men for “the greater good” in a multitude of meaningless wars. In fact, in the 20th century alone, there were 123 million people who died in battle. Thinning the herd of a few million “useless eaters” in order to save the planet is no different than sacrificing the lives of millions of young men for “communism” or “democracy.”
Therefore, the conspiracy theorist would posit that when conventional warfare becomes obsolete (as it has), unconventional warfare becomes conventional. After all, warfare is just a means to an end. Therefore, let’s assume that humans really are putting a huge strain on the planet’s resources and causing climate change that will inevitably become catastrophic. Combine that with the technological revolution that has transformed humans into “useless eaters” (consumers who don’t produce). If the PTB believe this to be true, are we to assume that they wouldn’t consider drastic measures? If they think the fate of the planet lies in their hands, are we to believe that these gods would sacrifice millions of lives for “freedom,” but not to save the planet?
To make an argument in a court of law, motive usually needs to be established. Motive is defined as, “the cause that moves people to induce a certain action.” If the earth is in an existential crisis, is there motive to institute population control measures?
Let’s ask a few elites what they think:
- Stephan Hawking: “In the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9% per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder.”
- Albert Einstein: “Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organise peace on this planet.”
- Michail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
- Isaac Asimov: “Democracy cannot survive overpopulation.”
- Prince Philip: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
- Bill Maher: “Shouldn’t we be against procreation at this point in time? With overpopulation and the strain on the resources on this planet? Shouldn’t we reward people who don’t spawn?”
- Bill Gates: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”
- Doug Stanhope: “When you consider the overpopulation in this world … homosexuality is completely underrated in this society.”
- Ted Turner:“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Richard Branson: “The truth is this: the Earth cannot provide enough food and fresh water for 10 billion people, never mind homes, never mind roads, hospitals, and schools.”
- Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class.”
- Paul Erlich: “Basically, then, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birth rate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birth rate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate — war, famine, pestilence — find us.
- Jacques Cousteau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
- Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die.”
- Dan Brown: “Overpopulation is an issue so profound that all of us need to ask what should be done.”
Based on the above observation and reasoning, I’ve developed the following thesis using the Hegelian Dialectic (problem, reaction, solution):
The PTB have scientifically reached the conclusion that human overpopulation has placed the planet in an existential crisis. They’ve determined that if drastic population control measures aren’t enacted soon, irreparable damage to the planet and its ecosystem is inevitable. They intend to address this issue in three phases: 1. Socially-engineered sterilization, 2. Technological escapism, 3. Space Emigration. We are in Phase 1 and on the verge of entering Phase 2.
Socially-engineered sterilization is a systemic-endorsed collusion amongst establishment entities that actively promote the breakdown of the family unit in order to discourage reproduction. The primary methods used are feminism and homosexuality.
The socially-engineered sterilization aspect of the depopulation effort has already been successfully implemented. The United States has frequently been below replacement numbers (2.1) since 1971, and has been consistently below since 2007. In 2020, the U.S. hit a record low at 1.6 births per woman. The breakdown of the traditional family as the result of radical feminism is the biggest contributor to the reduction in birthrates.
With regard to homosexuality, there has been a sharp rise in those who identify as LGBTQ, particularly among millennials. According to a recent poll, 5.6% of adults identify as LGBT, up from just 3.5% in 2012. Among millennials, data suggests that 20% identify as LGBTQ, compared to 12% of Gen X and just 7% of baby boomers. This illustrates the fluidity of sexuality when manipulated. Homosexuality as a cause is social, but as an effect it’s evolutionary.
The entirety of the West has not only endorsed feminism and homosexuality, but has vehemently enforced it. People get stuck in the mud moralizing these behaviors instead of rationally processing them. When a person is able to escape their feelings and analyze homosexuality and feminism critically, from an evolutionary perspective, they are able to see these behaviors for what they really are: a crypto-eugenics psy-op.
The next phase of depopulation is the one we are currently entering: technological escapism. This is the concept of replacing – or fusing – biological reality with virtual reality. The Metaverse is the evolution of the internet. Like it or not, it’s the next thing. This technology alone will plummet birthrates below one. People will just not leave their homes anymore. All of their relationships will be virtual. Reality will become a social construct.
Companies are literally spending millions of dollars as we speak buying up “property” in the Metaverse:
CNBC reports that since Facebook made the move towards becoming Meta, prices of digital plots have gone up by as much as 500%. One company reported spending over \$2.5 million USD on land in Decentraland, a metaverse based around crypto complete with its own currency where every piece of content in the game is owned, completely autonomously, by the players. Another firm revealed spending \$4.3 million buying a plot of land in Atari’s The Sandbox metaverse.
Metaverses, in the current zeitgeist, refers to these niche virtual worlds which in most cases, look a lot worse than your average videogame. Celebrity appearances and shows are becoming fairly common, a bit like the Fortnite concerts, and some like Snoop Dogg and Paris Hilton even own property in these worlds. Having celebrities onboard naturally is helping to drive up the price, with the house next to Snoop’s planned mansion going for \$4.3 million.
Another suspicious circumstance regarding the COVID pandemic is the timing aspect. Right about the time this VR technology is ready to be rolled out, society gets put into this perpetual state of nihilistic despair, glued to their phones in isolation. Everyone is miserable and depressed (77 million people in the US are on psychiatric drugs). Drug overdoses have reached all-time highs, with 93,000 people dying in 2020. Roughly 50,000 people commit suicide annually. Then out of nowhere, this new technology appears that will allow people to escape their living hell and create a better reality in a virtual world. Seems rather convenient, but it’s probably just another weird coincidence.
In a recently published article, an Australian professor of philosophy says that “virtual reality is genuine reality, and we need to embrace it.” Not only that, but he says that virtual reality will become a safe haven from things like “environmental collapse, pandemics and nuclear wars.” He even says that living in physical reality will eventually be viewed as a type of fetish:
It is hard to imagine humans spending their lives in virtual reality when the experience amounts to waving your arms about in the middle of the lounge with a device the size of a house brick strapped to your face.
But this is where humanity is heading, says the philosopher David Chalmers, who argues for embracing the fate. Advances in technology will deliver virtual worlds that rival and then surpass the physical realm. And with limitless, convincing experiences on tap, the material world may lose its allure, he says.
“A common way of thinking about virtual realities is that they’re somehow fake realities, that what you perceive in VR isn’t real. I think that’s wrong,” he told the Guardian. “The virtual worlds we’re interacting with can be as real as our ordinary physical world. Virtual reality is genuine reality.”
But where does this leave the physical world? “In the short term we’re pretty clearly going to be based in physical reality and I certainly wouldn’t recommend abandoning it,” Chalmers says. “But in the longer term, it’s possible to imagine people spending most of their lives inside virtual reality.” The pursuit of the physical may come to seem a novelty or a fetish, he adds.
Writing in the book, he describes numerous draws that will pull people in to VR. These are worlds in which people can enjoy superhuman powers, possess other bodies, experience new sensations and explore environments with different laws of physics. With almost unlimited space, everyone can have a virtual mansion, or even a virtual planet. And if the physical world becomes dangerously degraded – by environmental collapse, nuclear war or an interminable pandemic – VR could offer a safe haven, he says.
So, for the majority of “useless eaters,” the options are going to be, a) single and overweight, addicted to porn and opioids, suicidal and on antidepressants, b) buy some property next to Snoop Dogg and Kim Kardashian in the Metaverse with worthless crypto and become a handsome superhero with a private jet who gets all the chicks, or c) be an outlier.
That leads us to Phase 3: space colonization. Last year alone, investors dumped a record \$14.5 billion dollars into space stocks. That’s 50% more than was invested in 2020. Colonizing the final frontier might sound like a thing of fantasy, but it’s going to happen. And probably sooner than you think. After all, exploration and conquest are the essence of European Man. By the time space colonies are established, we will be in the midst of the sixth extinction, and the human population will have been considerably reduced. Earth’s ecosystem will be in recovery and become a nature reserve that the elites from space use as a vacation resort:
Amazon Founder and space explorer Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos, recently forecasted that Earth will soon become a “natural resort.”
According to a WION report Bezos said, this planet will soon turn into a natural resort because only a few “will be allowed to stay here in the future.”
During the annual Ignatius Forum in Washington DC, the billionaire also said, the Earth is special and “we cannot ruin it.”Talking about Blue Origin, his new firm, Bezos explained the experts are aiming to make sure that millions of people get to not only work in space but be born and call space as their first home, as well.Bezos also explained millions of people will move from Earth to space over time. More so, it is the vision of Blue Origin to make millions of people work in space.
For hundreds of years, he added, most, or many of the people “will be born in space.” It will be these humans’ first home. More so, they will be born in these colonies, not to mention, they will live in such colonies.
These people may visit this planet the way one would visit a national park, forecasted Bezos. He believes the space colonies in the future will have forests, wildlife, and rivers of their own, a similar Republicworld.com report said.
Describing his prediction, Bezos said this planet can support, for example, 10 billion people to a certain level. He elaborated they’d have to work quite hard to find out how to do that without degrading the Earth. Ge added the solar system can “support a trillion people.”Even though the billionaire is relatively positive about taking humanity to space and keeping this planet for a selected few, he was uncertain about claiming who is to decide who’s staying on this planet.
It’s not some kind of secret conspiracy theory when the richest man in the world is publicly telling everyone what the future looks like. The only way his vision doesn’t become reality is if it’s impossible to achieve. Ask yourself how many things you experience or witness everyday that 100 years ago would’ve been considered impossible by all practical measures. Bezos and company are serious, and they have every possible resource available at their disposal. Once you combine mission and motive, there’s only one unknown variable to the depopulation equation: time.