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:
Click for Full Text!