The Case For Depopulation
That's not why they're jabbing us, they want to make money, accumulate data/currency, and centralise the wealth amongst the "responsible". Deaths are just unfortunate casualties of science.
If you haven't been hiding under a rock because someone told you that doing so would protect you from a biological micro-organism, then you'll know what this article is about to describe. But, on the other hand, if you've listened to Pfizer and partners international marketing team religiously for three years, this isn't the article for you. Instead, you'll need to refer to my previous articles to wrap your head around how you correctly protect people from hypothetical biological hazards and risks. Quick hint, it doesn't involve the use of particulate masks and unlicensed medicines that neither address the hazard, the risks, or the symptoms.
She said it herself, the COVID-19 Response Bill and the mandates were created to check to see if they met their obligations to Health and Safety. What Act governs over their Health and Safety? The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Did the COVID-19 response policies meet their obligations to Health and Safety? No, they never addressed the hazard or the risks, and no one identified SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace. They broke their laws by implementing COVID-19 Response Policies, specifically, the one that apparently created the need for the policy.
Now we've got that out of the way, let's talk about the taboo subject that, up until recently, was only discussed in the woke partition of Extinction Rebellion, international "woke" ideological clubs, "woke" "non-government" organisations, and "woke" "secret" societies. Depopulation. Many would disagree that Depopulation is a moral endeavour, and that's precisely why we don't have democratic polls on whether or not we should purposely off ourselves. Suicide through deception, poisoning through implied consent, and engineered polarity war. You're not "woke" enough to be part of the debate on the case for Depopulation. That's why we keep that argument confined to indoctrinated echo chambers.
The real problem that hypothetically requires Depopulation to solve isn't anthropogenic climate change. The problem climate scientists can't prove because their projection models are always wrong. The real problem is catastrophic biodiversity loss, which we have confirmed through simple data modeling. However, the powers that be don't care about biodiversity loss, the centralisation of power is what they do. The diversity of life and supply is contrary to their business model and way of life. That's why the former profiteers of big oil, big agrichemical, and big pharmaceutical are turning anthropogenic climate change into a positive for them. Thanks to useful idiots, climate change now popularises big tech, big data, big pharmaceutical, and big media as the new monopolies: same assholes, different brands.
Bill Gates has taken a concept that has merit in science, misrepresented it and claimed the position of Health Czar. Yet, none of his initiatives has shown proof that they have improved health, quite the opposite. So, what has reduced population growth in first-world countries? Is it improved health, as he claims? Or is it a combination of psychological and physiological tampering, and why is population growth such a problem? Is it because we’re encouraged to live like parasites by profiteer parasites like Bill Gates and the companies he partners with?
There are reasons why few bat an eyelid at the concept of Depopulation. Reason one: We don't believe that those who consistently choose the psychopathic easy way out would do it again. For some reason, we have no time or motivation to consider our collective sense of welfare by correctly evaluating the psychology of organised psychopaths. Reason two: We’re led to believe that said organised psychopaths are our benevolent heroes. Even though they consistently convince us to be the over-consuming problem. Reason three: If we lose our wildlife, we lose the planet's ability to self-regulate its life-sustaining processes. So, sacrifice the many for the benefit of the earth.
Reason three is the most tempting to intellectuals and environmentalists as it makes them appear to be heroes to a callous mind. That's why part of society is being subliminally subverted to tend towards callous disregard; it's to make the mind more agreeable to final solutions. The character Thanos from Avengers is representative of the dogmatic known, a crisis response that motivates the good to find a better way to solve the existential problem. The opposing voice is the feminine warrior Gamora, an ambassador for the unknown; she constantly reminds him that he does not know that his solution will work. She is correct; this has happened before, and it did no good for the environment; instead, it made it worse.
Therein lies the opportunity for the profiteer of callous disregard. If one were to advance mineral-reliant technology through war. You could create AI. Then it wouldn't matter if wildlife went extinct, for the technology you own and control will replace them, and it could control the world. I mean, the world's life-supporting systems. Debt slaves pay for it until it sees no more need for organic life and no more need for commerce. The profiteer of callous disregard's course is potential oblivion for everything. Only a suicidal maniac would blindly leap down this path; that's why it is essential to ask questions. Your conspiracy theorists, the ones you piss on with your ignorance, are the only ones who are onto this problem. Let the best of them steer the ship of truth when you all stop being stupid.
Conclusion: Depopulation doesn't work; genetic suppression through acts that create mass trauma prevents life-enhancing evolution from making itself manifest. Is Depopulation the path to oblivion? Something to ponder, but not for too long.